Kelly the Dog Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Since none of you Big Mike stinks and Bryant McKinnie is better posters will answer the operative question posed earlier, I will do it for you as a public service: Question: Which is a MORE difficult position to play, left tackle on the 2002-2004 Minnesota Vikings team and offense with Dante Culpepper as your quarterback, OR, right tackle on the 2002-2004 Buffalo Bills team and offense with Drew Bledsoe as your quarterback? Answer: B. Right tackle on the 2002-2004 Buffalo Bills team and offense with Drew Bledsoe as your quarterback. RT on BB is more difficult to play than LT on MW, one would expect worse statistics from that position, one would expect to give up more sacks at that position, one would expect to look worse at that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Traditionally, the right side of the formation, is by default, considered the strong side. (ie: TE will line up there more times then not.) That in itself will cause the LT to be on an island more often. (ie: Max protect situations, etc.) Also, typically the D's best pass rusher lines up on the QB's blind side, if that's the case, it would logically make the LT's job more difficult then the RT's job. 109868[/snapback] Historically, what you say is true, but not so anymore. TEs are all over the place, even in the backfield. Moreover, the TE does not necessarily help a RT much when it comes to pass protection, unless he is staying in to block. And even then, he is usually occupied with his own assignment, not double teaming some poor schmuck. The reality is, that with todays TEs lining up in the backfield, motioning, etc. the "strong" side of the line is much less clear or constant as it once was. Secondly, take a look at the depth charts of most teams, and you will find just as often that they have an equally if not better pass rusher on the left side as the right. Moreover, teams will move their best pass rushers around, especially if they are linebackers playing a 3-4. While protecting the blind--side of a QB is still strategically important, and while it may motivate you to put your better player on the left side, the startegic importance does not make in and of itself make the job harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 It's harder to perfrom because the qb can't see the pressure coming, thus the need to sustain their block longer. Jesus Christopher, you've even answered it yourself in one of your half-assed explanations and you still don't realize it. 109860[/snapback] Sorry that makes zero sense. The Block would need to be sustained the exact same amount of time as the other side in order for the qb to get the ball off. Seeing or not seeing pressure coming has nothing to do with the length of a sustained block. There is zero correleation there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 No, I remember MW gave up the sack to Spicer who was playing LDE. 109881[/snapback] Well, after reviewing this Box Score again, either ESPN does not keep accurate stats, or your memory is failing you! Barnes is the only guy I see credited with a sack for the Jags. Jags/Bills Box Score Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Oh, and according to ESPN, Spicer (before he broke his leg against Denver) started 2 games at RIGHT defensive end, which puts him over our left tackle. Spicer Also, Barnes is a Right DE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Sorry that makes zero sense. The Block would need to be sustained the exact same amount of time as the other side in order for the qb to get the ball off. Seeing or not seeing pressure coming has nothing to do with the length of a sustained block. There is zero correleation there. 109894[/snapback] Thanks for the response dude.34-78-83. I aguess you had my blind side, which by defintition makes your response even more difficult because I didn't see this brilliant response coming. LOL! It's funny, but he claims I even explained this! Nothing like circular reasoning! I have to get to work! This is silly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Oh, and according to ESPN, Spicer (before he broke his leg against Denver) started 2 games at RIGHT defensive end, which puts him over our left tackle. Spicer Also, Barnes is a Right DE. 109913[/snapback] Spicer Did play some LE in our game vs. Jax. He was able to gather a few real good pressures vs. big Mike, and also disrupted some runs. If someone with tunnel vision wanted to use this game as an example of Big Mike's play, they certainly could. Of course it may not be very objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Oh, and according to ESPN, Spicer (before he broke his leg against Denver) started 2 games at RIGHT defensive end, which puts him over our left tackle. Spicer Also, Barnes is a Right DE. 109913[/snapback] I think they're wrong, Spicer was playing LDE in that game, & he beat MW bad at least once (though it may have been a running play stuffed in the backfield now that I think about it). I remember cussing MW out for letting a scrub like Spicer fly by him. Oh well, I'm not slamming him here anyways, like I said earlier, I think he's starting to step up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Oh, and according to ESPN, Spicer (before he broke his leg against Denver) started 2 games at RIGHT defensive end, which puts him over our left tackle. Spicer Also, Barnes is a Right DE. 109913[/snapback] I don't recall who lined up where, but against the Bills, Barnes started the game at RDE opposite Jennings and Spicer played LDE opposite Mike Williams. Barnes was credited with the only sack, which was that play on 3-1 from the one yard line when Bledsoe decided to just go down with a six yard sack rather than give up an INT in the endzone and Lindell then kicked the FG. It was made by Barnes alone I believe, and I am almost sure that he caught Bledsoe from the left/blindside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I think they're wrong, Spicer was playing LDE in that game, & he beat MW bad at least once (though it may have been a running play stuffed in the backfield now that I think about it). I remember cussing MW out for letting a scrub like Spicer fly by him. Oh well, I'm not slamming him here anyways, like I said earlier, I think he's starting to step up. 109931[/snapback] It may be that he did play some LDE. I checked the NFL box score and he had no sack according to them either. Well, he was still playing catch up then, but I think he has been playing good ball and hardly at level which could be described as "stinking the place up." Sometimes it actually takes even high draft picks a few seasons before they get it. There are plenty of examples that could be cited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Soooo.....back on topic. McKinney really got his ass handed to him last night aye? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_eyedog_* Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Sorry that makes zero sense. The Block would need to be sustained the exact same amount of time as the other side in order for the qb to get the ball off. Seeing or not seeing pressure coming has nothing to do with the length of a sustained block. There is zero correleation there. 109894[/snapback] No correlation ??? OK. I guess the qb can't dump the ball off if he can see that pressure coming. Oh I guess everyone forgot Spicer was over Williams. I don't need to check ESPN. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Soooo.....back on topic. McKinney really got his ass handed to him last night aye? 109946[/snapback] Yeah, but if I had to go against Freeney I would probably hand myself my own ass. So....to add a twist....how about this for an interesting discussion.... Would you rather have MW, McKinnie, or the guy who toasted him - Freeney taken after both of them at the 11th pick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 No correlation ??? OK. I guess the qb can't dump the ball off if he can see that pressure coming. Oh I guess everyone forgot Spicer was over Williams. I don't need to check ESPN. LOL. 109975[/snapback] Yeah hee hee! Maybe you should check with ESPN, he didn't get any sacks against him. Hardly what I would call being abused. LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_eyedog_* Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Did you watch the game Bob ? Obviously not since you don't even know who was playing in front of him. Spicer was in the backfield the whole game. Go look that up in your ESPN stats, then re-watch the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 No correlation ??? OK. I guess the qb can't dump the ball off if he can see that pressure coming. 109975[/snapback] Once again, you marvel no one with your argument. Whether or not a QB has the option to react to what he sees or not has nothing to do with the difficulty of the job. The QB needs the same amount of time to pass from both sides. The only difference is whether he can react to less than satisfactory time. The only difference is that the QB gets knocked into next week when he gets hit from the blind side. But that doesn't mean the job is any harder to perform. More important for the safety of the QB yes, more difficult to perform, no. But alas you will never see that distinction. Not that it is really all that complex mind you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Did you watch the game Bob ? Obviously not since you don't even know who was playing in front of him. Spicer was in the backfield the whole game. Go look that up in your ESPN stats, then re-watch the game. 110002[/snapback] Umm yes I saw the game, and obviously the guy didn't have all that much of an impact on it or I would have remembered him. I guess that's what happens when you are a guy who was in the backfield the whole game with a statute at QB, but sure didn't have much to show for it LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_eyedog_* Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Blind side hits cause turnovers, that change games. QB can't see it coming and can't get rid of the ball. Those plays change games. I can't believe I'm even debating this with some of you. It's complex, Bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Of course, everyone here is missing the freakin' point. Jennings, when healthy, is better than both Williams and McKinnie. So if McKinnie was a Bill, he'd be a RT, just like Williams. And if you don't like drafting a right tackle that high, the Bills could have drafted a different position, which would cause people to whine that the Bills don't pay enough attention to the OL. And while the LT is supposed to protect the QBs blindside, preventing sacks and turnovers from the blind side, remember that Culpepper fumbles more than any other QB in the history of the league, averaging more than 1 fumble a game. How many of those record-setting fumbles come from the blind side? Maybe the point here is that tackle is a position that requires a few years to master. Guys that pick it up quickly are more the exception than the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Blind side hits cause turnovers, that change games. QB can't see it coming and can't get rid of the ball. Those plays change games. I can't believe I'm even debating this with some of you. It's complex, Bob. 110018[/snapback] 2002: Bledsoe: 8 fumbles Culpepper: 23 fumbles 2003: Bledsoe: 15 fumbles Culpepper: 16 fumbles 2004: Bledsoe: 4 fumbles Culpepper: 7 fumbles What's your point again? http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/133263 http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1041 CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts