PDA

View Full Version : I really hope Jason Whittle hasent been brought here to start......


xXSpIkes5IXx
03-02-2007, 10:36 AM
Let me first off say, i like the Whittle signing...as a depth signing. I hope Marv and co arent bringing him in to start. To me he is just another Reyes or Anderson. However, he has proven he can step in and start games if a guy ahead of him gets hurt. Im not sold on him as a starter, and i hope are management isnt either.

I've also heard he can play all 5 line positions. If so this is a great depth signing, considering we have essentially no depth on the o line, especially at tackle.
HHURRICANE
03-02-2007, 10:42 AM
Let me first off say, i like the Whittle signing...as a depth signing. I hope Marv and co arent bringing him in to start. To me he is just another Reyes or Anderson. However, he has proven he can step in and start games if a guy ahead of him gets hurt. Im not sold on him as a starter, and i hope are management isnt either.

I've also heard he can play all 5 line positions. If so this is a great depth signing, considering we have essentially no depth on the o line, especially at tackle.

At 34 this guy still has unproven potential. McNally will make him a Pro Bowler so don't worry.:crap:
Jeff1220
03-02-2007, 10:42 AM
At his salary, I doubt it.
Night Train
03-02-2007, 10:48 AM
He's a 32 year old backup that can play anywhere on the line in a pinch. Nothing more.
Mr. Pink
03-02-2007, 10:52 AM
Other players have been brought in who shoulda been depth signings but now start, such as Melvin Fowler. That's why some people around here are worried about things like this. Especially when we have holes on the o-line to fill and he's the first guy brought in.
Night Train
03-02-2007, 10:55 AM
Other players have been brought in who shoulda been depth signings but now start, such as Melvin Fowler. That's why some people around here are worried about things like this. Especially when we have holes on the o-line to fill and he's the first guy brought in.

Fowler was brought in to start when the Bills were dumping Teague and was paid well.

Why make things up ?
Mr. Pink
03-02-2007, 10:56 AM
I was saying...Fowler should have been a depth guy...Fowler never proved he was worth being a starter in his career nor ever was really a starter prior to coming here.

That's not making up anything, that's truth.
Dr. Lecter
03-02-2007, 10:57 AM
One year deal.

Not a starter deal.
mysticsoto
03-02-2007, 11:01 AM
I was saying...Fowler should have been a depth guy...Fowler never proved he was worth being a starter in his career nor ever was really a starter prior to coming here.

That's not making up anything, that's truth.

That's your opinion. My opinion is the Fowler has played better than Teague (only slightly, but still) and therefore deserved being the starter over him.

I'm actually surprised by all the complaining around here. Weren't people complaining at the beginning of last year that we needed more veteran depth on our Line? Villarial is gone and all we have are rookies right now as depth. Do you really think adding some veteran depth is a bad thing???

C'mon, nobody is saying that Whittle is the answer to our Oline holes. Just that he's good versatile veteran depth...exactly the kind we need!!!
Mr. Pink
03-02-2007, 11:04 AM
That's your opinion. My opinion is the Fowler has played better than Teague (only slightly, but still) and therefore deserved being the starter over him.

I'm actually surprised by all the complaining around here. Weren't people complaining at the beginning of last year that we needed more veteran depth on our Line? Villarial is gone and all we have are rookies right now as depth. Do you really think adding some veteran depth is a bad thing???

C'mon, nobody is saying that Whittle is the answer to our Oline holes. Just that he's good versatile veteran depth...exactly the kind we need!!!

Hey, if he was brought in as some veteran depth that's great. It's a good move, but I can understand why people are worried that he may start. I'd be worried if he was starting come Sept myself. As depth, it's a good move.

It's kind of suspicious that a team who obviously needs quality at the position over quantity, signs a quantity guy first though. That's all I'm saying and why I agree with some people being worried over it.
Bert102176
03-02-2007, 11:14 AM
I like the signing for depth but if he's a starter I feel sorry JP
Bert102176
03-02-2007, 11:18 AM
McNally sucks the only thing he has done is helped Jason Peters convert to OT look at all the OL guys he has had to work with, when he was brought in he was suppose to be so great at making good OL's well he hasn't proven **** to me
TacklingDummy
03-02-2007, 11:20 AM
Whittle has experience working with McNally.

4 teams in 5 years might be a sign.
madness
03-02-2007, 11:30 AM
I was saying...Fowler should have been a depth guy...Fowler never proved he was worth being a starter in his career nor ever was really a starter prior to coming here.

That's not making up anything, that's truth.

Yes it is and no it's not.
raphael120
03-02-2007, 11:34 AM
:drool:
justasportsfan
03-02-2007, 11:42 AM
McNally sucks the only thing he has done is helped Jason Peters convert to OT look at all the OL guys he has had to work with, when he was brought in he was suppose to be so great at making good OL's well he hasn't proven **** to me

When you have TD shove guys down your throat like Bennie Anderson , Villarial , Mike Williams ,Gandy ( at LT) and tell you "make it work" it's not gonna happen. Marv asks his coaches for their input unlike the nazzi. Are they gonna get it in his first year? I doubt it. Give it a chance before you start calling people busts. After all, the OL did improved after the shuffle and they are still shopping.