PDA

View Full Version : Our starting ends against bengals OT's


Kerr
08-19-2006, 08:22 PM
0 sacks and they were backups. Should this be a concern??
Tatonka
08-19-2006, 08:24 PM
obviously it is not good.
Goobylal
08-19-2006, 08:24 PM
Non-issue. Wait until the real season.
ICE74129
08-19-2006, 09:20 PM
0 sacks and they were backups. Should this be a concern??

No. The only reason we lost is JP And his fumbles. Not the fact we got no pressure with our DL on backups, Willis fumble led to at least a 10 point swing, DB's couldn't stop Johnson etc.

Its just JP's fault
Kelly The Dog
08-19-2006, 09:26 PM
Tripplet's sack was really due to Schobel who made the play. Denney looked good, too.
Kerr
08-20-2006, 10:53 AM
No. The only reason we lost is JP And his fumbles. Not the fact we got no pressure with our DL on backups, Willis fumble led to at least a 10 point swing, DB's couldn't stop Johnson etc.

Its just JP's fault


All you had to say is no.
Scumbag College
08-20-2006, 11:03 AM
Even though the DEs didn't have any sacks, Wright was under alot of pressure during the first half. Schoebel got into Wright's face on Tripplett's sack and really caused it. Denney had pressure a couple of times and batted down a pass in the end zone. I had to look up on the Bills' website who #91 was. Eric Powell was all over the place and around the QB a few times. I didn't see much of Kelsay though.

You know that Schoebel is solid, but I think the Bills are going to be OK this year with Kelsay, Denney, and Powell as the other three DEs.
mysticsoto
08-21-2006, 08:01 AM
0 sacks and they were backups. Should this be a concern??

Remember...Vanilla defense. Nothing is disguised. No surprises or tipping of our hand to show packages we will implement.

People forget that in the early 90s, Levy lost most of the preseason games too...it doesn't mean anything!!!
HHURRICANE
08-21-2006, 08:11 AM
0 sacks and they were backups. Should this be a concern??

Your stating the obvious. Our ends suck and won't get addressed until next year.
Kerr
08-21-2006, 09:14 AM
Remember...Vanilla defense. Nothing is disguised. No surprises or tipping of our hand to show packages we will implement.

People forget that in the early 90s, Levy lost most of the preseason games too...it doesn't mean anything!!!


Understood, but if it takes a scheme to get our ends to get a sack, then that's kind of pathetic. I mean our starting ends should at least gain a sack on their pure speed, quickness and strength, especially against backups.
mysticsoto
08-21-2006, 09:29 AM
Understood, but if it takes a scheme to get our ends to get a sack, then that's kind of pathetic. I mean our starting ends should at least gain a sack on their pure speed, quickness and strength, especially against backups.

We haven't had speed, quickness and strength at the DE position since Bruce. Schobel gets his sacks purely on tenacity. Kelsay and Denney get sacks very sporadically and haven't been shown to have what it takes to go to the next level. All in all, DE is really one of our weaker positions.

I expect Levy to address the position next year in the draft possibly in the 1st rd...barring how our QB situation turns out.
Kerr
08-21-2006, 09:38 AM
We haven't had speed, quickness and strength at the DE position since Bruce. Schobel gets his sacks purely on tenacity. Kelsay and Denney get sacks very sporadically and haven't been shown to have what it takes to go to the next level. All in all, DE is really one of our weaker positions.

I expect Levy to address the position next year in the draft possibly in the 1st rd...barring how our QB situation turns out.
:ill:
MikeInRoch
08-21-2006, 10:10 AM
You also need to keep in mind that the Bengals have one of the best O-lines (and in particular, their tackles) in the league.
Kerr
08-21-2006, 10:11 AM
You also need to keep in mind that the Bengals have one of the best O-lines (and in particular, their tackles) in the league.


Backup tackles as well? Their starting tackles didn't play in the game at all.