Bills release RT/LG La’el Collins (Merged) (1 Viewer)

[Doug B]

I read off a blurb that he has lost all speed. He doesn't have the nimbleness necessary to play tackle and when pulling as a guard, he falls behind the play. Yikes.

Yeah, if Collins' knee isn't back -- or if it's permanently impacted -- then yeah, he won't be able to help a team.

 

[Infoman]

Your argument reminds me a bit of our old pal NOfalcon10, who'd argue endlessly that there was zero point trying to fix our 32nd ranked defense at all, and that we should instead plow almost all resources into boosting our offensive prowess. (Of course, it didn't help that he thought the answer was receivers like Denzel Mims, Andy Isabella and Kelvin Benjamin )

Adding 'blue chip' skill position players to a team with holes at OL would be a bit like being lost in the desert with no food or water, but getting the Red Cross to airlift you a LayzeeBoy, so you'd at least be relatively comfortable while you died of thirst.

To be fair, you spent a lot of time pre-draft saying we didn't need to spend high picks on OL. Practically everyone disagreed with you IIRC. But I notice you now say:-



You can't have it both ways. You can't demand spending the high pick on your man crush TE (who wasn't even available at the pick), but also that the team should have spent multiple high picks on OL. As well as signing some 'serious FA o linemen", which as we all know are in such plentiful supply.

The team got the best OL it could in the first round. It then used it's meagre options to try to fix the rest of the unit. Just to be clear, I haven't tried to tell you that the team did enough to cover the problem, but I am comfortable saying that what they did was a hell of a lot more responsible than just not trying.

The idea that if they didn't get more 'serious' OL, they should just not have bothered at all is pretty ludicrous.

I said what I said... Had they gone all out... drafted back to back OTs... and brought in serious actual starting caliber Vets that could play OT.... Not going and getting blue chips skill players would have been acceptable and understandable... They didn't do that... The didn't do either... Both ways is the problem... Every thread here, and every reputable football analyst out there has the same questions for our season now... as the had before the draft and FA... "Holy crap the could the Oline really be that bad? And Do the Saints have enough weapons to help Carr score more than 20?"

You don't tell Ludacris what's Ludacris - Ludacris tells you what's Ludacris....!!!!

 

[TribuneUK]

Repetition doesn't make you less wrong.

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

I said what I said... Had they gone all out... drafted back to back OTs... and brought in serious actual starting caliber Vets that could play OT.... Not going and getting blue chips skill players would have been acceptable and understandable... They didn't do that... The didn't do either... Both ways is the problem... Every thread here, and every reputable football analyst out there has the same questions for our season now... as the had before the draft and FA... "Holy crap the could the Oline really be that bad? And Do the Saints have enough weapons to help Carr score more than 20?"

You don't tell Ludacris what's Ludacris - Ludacris tells you what's Ludacris....!!!!

The only difference is, how much of the innerworkings of the team do those "reputable football analyst" have?

For instance, those same analyst have been suggesting the 49ers have a need at RT for a couple years now. They have the PFF grades that support the 49ers have a need a RT, perhaps moments in the game highlight that need as well....but the 49ers refuse. They instead drafted a WR w/ their 1st pick. Are they going against the grain or do they know more than those analyst about what pieces they need to function vs what they may deem as a luxury?

 

[Infoman]

Repetition doesn't make you less wrong.

Then explain why we are having the exact same discussions - about the exact same concerns - - about the same positions of weakness that we had at the very end of last year - ad nauseum - right now?

I'll go get my sleeping bag, popcorn, rye whiskey, and some pepto bismol awaiting your most riveting insight on how I am wrong. LMAO

 

[Infoman]

The only difference is, how much of the innerworkings of the team do those "reputable football analyst" have?

For instance, those same analyst have been suggesting the 49ers have a need at RT for a couple years now. They have the PFF grades that support the 49ers have a need a RT, perhaps moments in the game highlight that need as well....but the 49ers refuse. They instead drafted a WR w/ their 1st pick. Are they going against the grain or do they know more than those analyst about what pieces they need to function vs what they may deem as a luxury?

Dude... It's every thread here, Underhill, Mike D, Fazende, Duncan (da-hoe)... You and I have also discussed it.... I am not pulling this outta my butt... LOL

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

Dude... It's every thread here, Underhill, Mike D, Fazende, Duncan (da-hoe)... You and I have also discussed it.... I am not pulling this outta my butt... LOL

All of those names are also individuals who've understood how things work in one particular scheme for a decade +. It's possible they don't know how things are going to piece together either and so their bias is a bit colored.

For instance, I gave the example in my PFF thread of how last year under Pete Carmichael the response to a 3rd and 13 would be to pass. That put pressure on Carr and the O-line to make something happen. Vs this year a 3rd and 13 is likely to be met with a draw play, or some sort of run that concedes the scenario, followed by a punt/play on field position.

One approach puts less pressure on the Oline and the QB

If you're more likey to pass on 3rd and 13 then you absolutely need guys who can pass block, and hopefully at a high level. However if you're going to run the ball in that scenario, that skillset gets minimized a bit through the game. Where you'd likely pass in that scenario 5 out of 6 times under Carmichael you may run in that scenario 3 out of 6 times under Kubiak. Therefore reducing the amount of times you need your O-line to hold up in protection.

 

[TribuneUK]

Then explain why we are having the exact same discussions - about the exact same concerns - - about the same positions of weakness that we had at the very end of last year - ad nauseum - right now?

I'll go get my sleeping bag, popcorn, rye whiskey, and some pepto bismol awaiting your most riveting insight on how I am wrong. LMAO

Trying to pivot the discussion away from your painfully awful take on this won't help. You claimed that not bothering to address OL at all would have been better than drafting Fuaga along with other moves the team made.

It's still laughable.

 

[Infoman]

Trying to pivot the discussion away from your painfully awful take on this won't help. You claimed that not bothering to address OL at all would have been better than drafting Fuaga along with other moves the team made.

It's still laughable.

What's laughable is we're are going to have to run the ball 35 times a game, and play astounding defense this year to be competitive... no different than last year... that's what's painful... It's one of my favorite things to watch... right up there with watching paint dry, twiddling my thumbs, and my wife's book club meetings. (super sarcasm engaged)

 

[TribuneUK]

What's laughable is we're are going to have to run the ball 35 times a game, and play astounding defense this year to be competitive... no different than last year... that's what's painful... It's one of my favorite things to watch... right up there with watching paint dry, twiddling my thumbs, and my wife's book club meetings. (super sarcasm engaged)

More than one thing in the world can be laughable at the same time.

 

[Infoman]

More than one thing in the world can be laughable at the same time.

True... but there is a big difference between laughing at what's actually funny.... and laughing to simply keep yourself from crying... good luck with knowing the difference this year.

 

[TribuneUK]

True... but there is a big difference between laughing at what's actually funny.... and laughing to simply keep yourself from crying... good luck with knowing the difference this year.

Your ideas are often actually funny. We may need that entertainment value this year for sure.

 

[Infoman]

All of those names are also individuals who've understood how things work in one particular scheme for a decade +. It's possible they don't know how things are going to piece together either and so their bias is a bit colored.

For instance, I gave the example in my PFF thread of how last year under Pete Carmichael the response to a 3rd and 13 would be to pass. That put pressure on Carr and the O-line to make something happen. Vs this year a 3rd and 13 is likely to be met with a draw play, or some sort of run that concedes the scenario, followed by a punt/play on field position.

One approach puts less pressure on the Oline and the QB

If you're more likey to pass on 3rd and 13 then you absolutely need guys who can pass block, and hopefully at a high level. However if you're going to run the ball in that scenario, that skillset gets minimized a bit through the game. Where you'd likely pass in that scenario 5 out of 6 times under Carmichael you may run in that scenario 3 out of 6 times under Kubiak. Therefore reducing the amount of times you need your O-line to hold up in protection.

So my point stands... and we are just praying that Kubiak can play-call us out of situations where our blockers have to pass block... and our skill players have to show skill... sounds legit... sign me up.... LOL

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

So my point stands... and we are just praying that Kubiak can play-call us out of situations where our blockers have to pass block... and our skill players have to show skill... sounds legit... sign me up.... LOL

No, I think that's an extreme way of putting it.

What were hoping is that a new scheme minimizes our shortcomings and accentuates what we're good at. Pete didn't do that last year.

 

[Infoman]

No, I think that's an extreme way of putting it.

What were hoping is that a new scheme minimizes our shortcomings and accentuates what we're good at. Pete didn't do that last year.

Right.... but it doesn't mean the short comings don't exist... or that we didn't fix the same shortcomings we had at the end of last year... and that because of that... Kubiak will have to scheme around them relentlessly.

Which logically (not extreme) leads back to my initial point of... There was no point in drafting players and making signings that don't change the state of the team overall... If we were going address a group... then address the heck out of it... make it so it's near impossible not to have the exact same issues you had last year...

In the end... we are having the exact same discussions about the exact same deficiencies we had last year... ergo we failed to draft and sign players sufficient enough to resolve those same issues....

Here we are. Full circle.

Hope isn't going to beat 1 on 1 coverage... nor is it going to stone wall Brian Burns.