Hairston to play LT Thurs.

[BLeonard]

http://blogs.buffalobills.com/2011/08/31/hairston-to-play-lt-thurs/



“He played left tackle in college so he had a comfort level at left tackle,” said Gailey in reference to Hairston playing on the right and left side last Saturday. ”I think it’s worked out well for him to be able to play both. The way we sit right now he needs to know both so it helps us from a depth perspective as well. We’ll keep him at left this week just so he can hone in on that for an extended period of time and see how he does.”


-Bill

[CleveSteve]

He definitely seemed like he'd be more comfortable at LT coming out of college than RT, especially in the senior bowl practices. He needs to play stronger to be a solid contributor.

[OpIv37]

You hear that scratching sound?

It's Chan scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[psubills62]

You hear that scratching sound?

It's Chan scraping the bottom of the barrel.
How exactly is this scraping the bottom of the barrel? You do realize he's not going to play LT with the first team, right? Just trying him out there, you know, kind of like they did against Jacksonville too. Or is it now a bad thing to have a guy who knows both OT spots?

[justasportsfan]

You hear that scratching sound?

It's Chan scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Having players play different positions is scraping? If teams didn't do that the Jason Peters would never have been a LT. BB does that all the time.

[Bill Cody]

You hear that scratching sound?

It's Chan scraping the bottom of the barrel.

OR we're trying to make the most of one of our draft picks.

[trapezeus]

i think it's a little of both. yes, it's good to see where people are, but it's no secret that the line isn't solidified which means that yes, the bills may be looking to see a spark from hairston to be a starter.

it seems late to be trying to plug holes, but hey, at least they admit they've got some problems.

i'll reserve my judgement for opening day. we'll see how they do.

[OpIv37]

Having players play different positions is scraping? If teams didn't do that the Jason Peters would never have been a LT. BB does that all the time.


How exactly is this scraping the bottom of the barrel? You do realize he's not going to play LT with the first team, right? Just trying him out there, you know, kind of like they did against Jacksonville too. Or is it now a bad thing to have a guy who knows both OT spots?

First, I think this is a sign that they aren't happy with Bell's performance so they are trying someone else at the position. Of course, this is just my opinion and I have no evidence of it, but it's not a good sign.

Second, this shows that they have no back-up plan if Bell gets injured. One injury and we will end up re-shuffling the whole OL. That's definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel, especially when you consider it in terms of all the other OL shuffling that's gone on this off-season (Wood to C, Hangartner and Levitre demoted, etc).

[OpIv37]

OR we're trying to make the most of one of our draft picks.

that's the red-and-blue colored glasses way of saying "we are depending on rookies coming through to make this OL work."

[better days]

i think it's a little of both. yes, it's good to see where people are, but it's no secret that the line isn't solidified which means that yes, the bills may be looking to see a spark from hairston to be a starter.

it seems late to be trying to plug holes, but hey, at least they admit they've got some problems.

i'll reserve my judgement for opening day. we'll see how they do.

My thoughts exactly. It is great to have players able to play more than one position. I think that is also the reason Levtrie was pulled at LG, to see if another player could play there in case they need to move Levtrie to another position.

[DraftBoy]

While I dont think he will ever be a NFL LT, it can't get much worse there so may as well give it a looksie.

[OpIv37]

While I dont think he will ever be a NFL LT, it can't get much worse there so may as well give it a looksie.

hence, scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[DraftBoy]

hence, scraping the bottom of the barrel.

In your negative view yes. No matter what you already spent the pick on the kid. You need to see what you got.

Call it whatever you wish, it doesnt change the fact that we need to be sure on him.

[k-oneputt]

I think it's a great idea. Why not ? It's a meaningless game so get a good look at him.

[Bill Cody]

that's the red-and-blue colored glasses way of saying "we are depending on rookies coming through to make this OL work."


Who really cares what you want to label this as? Hairston will either pan out or he won't. Playing him some snaps at LT is just taking advantage of a position he played in college and gives us another option. Anthony Munoz ain't walking through that door. At some point the Bills have to get a little lucky and smart to turn things around. They can't all be 1st round picks.

[justasportsfan]

First, I think this is a sign that they aren't happy with Bell's performance so they are trying someone else at the position. Of course, this is just my opinion and I have no evidence of it, but it's not a good sign.

Second, this shows that they have no back-up plan if Bell gets injured. One injury and we will end up re-shuffling the whole OL. That's definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel, especially when you consider it in terms of all the other OL shuffling that's gone on this off-season (Wood to C, Hangartner and Levitre demoted, etc).


thats a definite possibility but it also could be due diligence. Hairston is an OT and was drafted to play tackle. He played some LT so I don't see whats wrong with seeing if he can play there as well.

Maybe they aren't happy with Bell or maybe Hairston could end up being a better LT. You'll never know until you try. AAgain a perfect example is Peters. A guy you wanted to keep.

[justasportsfan]

In your negative view yes. No matter what you already spent the pick on the kid. You need to see what you got.

Call it whatever you wish, it doesnt change the fact that we need to be sure on him.


exactly. In OPs world the bills are damned if they do damned if they don't.

I'm surprised he's not having a problem with Easely returning kicks. Gailey must be desperate for returners.

[better days]

thats a definite possibility but it also could be due diligence. Hairston is an OT and was drafted to play tackle. He played some LT so I don't see whats wrong with seeing if he can play there as well.

Maybe they aren't happy with Bell or maybe Hairston could end up being a better LT. You'll never know until you try. AAgain a perfect example is Peters. A guy you wanted to keep.

Talk about Peters, the Eagles OL is in disarray as is the Cowboys OL.

[Mr. Miyagi]

that's the red-and-blue colored glasses way of saying "we are depending on rookies coming through to make this OL work."
What you said implies that any team that plays their rookies is scraping the bottom of their barrel.

Good Lord, New Orleans is in trouble since they're depending on their rookie RB Ingram to make their running game work.

[psubills62]

First, I think this is a sign that they aren't happy with Bell's performance so they are trying someone else at the position. Of course, this is just my opinion and I have no evidence of it, but it's not a good sign.
Seems the bolded is more and more prevalent lately. What if it means they're not happy with Wang instead?


Second, this shows that they have no back-up plan if Bell gets injured. One injury and we will end up re-shuffling the whole OL. That's definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel, especially when you consider it in terms of all the other OL shuffling that's gone on this off-season (Wood to C, Hangartner and Levitre demoted, etc).
So you're saying they're scraping the bottom of the barrel...for depth?

And I'm confused...if Hairston ends up being the backup LT (not sure that's going to be the case, but I'll play along), how exactly does that mean one injury forces them to re-shuffle the entire OL? Doesn't that just mean they'll plug Hairston in and go?

It's a preseason game, Op. It's the last one to boot. This is the game where they're supposed to look at players, especially depth guys to see who they want to keep and where. If Hairston ends up looking good at LT, then maybe that means they can cut one more guy from the OL than they were planning on keeping.

These are the times when it's obvious you are complaining just to complain.

And by the way, Levitre wasn't demoted.

[OpIv37]

exactly. In OPs world the bills are damned if they do damned if they don't.

I'm surprised he's not having a problem with Easely returning kicks. Gailey must be desperate for returners.

They wouldn't be damned if either Bell could play LT well or if they had someone else who could.

[OpIv37]

What you said implies that any team that plays their rookies is scraping the bottom of their barrel.

Good Lord, New Orleans is in trouble since they're depending on their rookie RB Ingram to make their running game work.

First, RB is the easiest position for a rookie to pick up.

Second, NO has far more talent around Ingram and is only depending on one rookie. Think of all the guys on our team who are rookies and/or unproven that we are counting on. It's ridiculous.

[DraftBoy]

You're reaching.

[Bill Cody]

First, RB is the easiest position for a rookie to pick up.

Second, NO has far more talent around Ingram and is only depending on one rookie. Think of all the guys on our team who are rookies and/or unproven that we are counting on. It's ridiculous.

And what was the state of the saints the year before they signed Drew Brees? Bad teams plug in more rookies, duh.

[OpIv37]

And what was the state of the saints the year before they signed Drew Brees? Bad teams plug in more rookies, duh.

That's exactly my point: we're a bad team.

[Mr. Miyagi]

That's exactly my point: we're a bad team.
You totally get off on being so negative all the time.

It's really annoying.

No one wants to be around a negative nancy.

[DraftBoy]

That's exactly my point: we're a bad team.

Well thank-you Captain Obvious. I think we missed that the first time we read over the roster and went "Who in the hell is....(insert 30-40 different names here)?"

[justasportsfan]

They wouldn't be damned if either Bell could play LT well or if they had someone else who could.
again, we don't know if they are happy or not with Bell. I am not saying that they are satisfied, you could be right. But to count out that they are just doing due diligence (a positive move) is simply looking for something negative especially when you claim you don't have facts.

[psubills62]

That's exactly my point: we're a bad team.
What? This is the first time I've heard this! Nobody ever says that on this message board! Shocking!

[EDS]

I am guessing the Bills are in big trouble if Hairston is forced to play LT at some point this season. But, maybe Buddy feels Lucky.

[OpIv37]

Well thank-you Captain Obvious. I think we missed that the first time we read over the roster and went "Who in the hell is....(insert 30-40 different names here)?"

Here's the problem: I still see people predicting 7-8 wins on this site. And comparing us to the 05 Chargers. So, while it might be obvious to you and me that this is a bad team, some people still haven't gotten the message.

And I think some of those who originally got the message quickly forgot it after the last preseason game.

[OpIv37]

What? This is the first time I've heard this! Nobody ever says that on this message board! Shocking!

see post above.

[DraftBoy]

Here's the problem: I still see people predicting 7-8 wins on this site. And comparing us to the 05 Chargers. So, while it might be obvious to you and me that this is a bad team, some people still haven't gotten the message.

And I think some of those who originally got the message quickly forgot it after the last preseason game.

Yes I see the same you do, what I dont get is why you think you need to lead the crusade against it.

You damn well know what this is and how meaningless it is. Why you choose the most miniscule thing to point out rather than the 20 other obvious things is what I dont get.

The Bills are bad there is plenty of low hanging fruit to bash on.

[OpIv37]

Yes I see the same you do, what I dont get is why you think you need to lead the crusade against it.

You damn well know what this is and how meaningless it is. Why you choose the most miniscule thing to point out rather than the 20 other obvious things is what I dont get.

The Bills are bad there is plenty of low hanging fruit to bash on.

I've already pointed out the 20 other obvious things. Then I get chastised for repeating the same things over and over again.

IMO this just highlights how desperate we are on the OL. Gailey or the other posters here can spin it as "due diligence" all they want, but we are in trouble up front. The Hairston move just highlights it.

[DraftBoy]

I've already pointed out the 20 other obvious things. Then I get chastised for repeating the same things over and over again.

IMO this just highlights how desperate we are on the OL. Gailey or the other posters here can spin it as "due diligence" all they want, but we are in trouble up front. The Hairston move just highlights it.

Maybe then you should reanalyze what a proper response would be to the chastising rather than just making **** up.

[alohabillsfan]

Try thinking about the roster which the FO is doing, If Hairiston plays ok at LT and played ok at RT then he is the swing T. Some "posters are just moronic". its game 4 of the preseason.

[justasportsfan]

Bills moved Carrington to lb'er , maybe we are desperate at that position.

[Captain Obvious]

Here's the problem: I see people predicting 7-8 wins on this site.

In a few years past 65% of the zoners were predicting 7-8 wins for the Bills.. Now you're getting your rocks off denegrating the 15% who are predicting 7-8 wins

[Night Train]

What he needed to work on was getting out of his stance quicker and sliding his feet better. I watched him in person last Saturday and the improvement was evident. He played well. Very strong.

[Bill Cody]

That's exactly my point: we're a bad team.

wow really? stop the presses

No you actually had no point and have been owned in this thread.

It actually doesn't matter whether Bell is a good LT or a bad LT in the context of giving Hairston snaps there, if he's good Bell will start and Hairston could be valuable depth, if he's bad Hairston could be another option. Letting him show what he can do is why we drafted him. Only the most warped view would see letting him play in preseason as anything but due dilligence.

You seem to not only object to us being bad but enjoy ridiculing any efforts we make to get better. Will Hairston work out? Nobody knows but finding out is the Bills point.

[EDS]

Bills moved Carrington to lb'er , maybe we are desperate at that position.

Argueably yes at OLB.

[The Jokeman]

Talk about Peters, the Eagles OL is in disarray as is the Cowboys OL.
Is it disarray because of Peters? or is he the only thing that's not. Say what you want but if we had Peters on this team I think we'd have a better team. As yes Erik Wood is a good guy but he's far from being a Nick Mangold and they were taken at equivalent spots in their respective drafts.

[Captain Obvious]

It's really annoying.



Whats annoying is that Op thinks he is so smart and superior than everyone else because Mitchell55/MarcellDareus Power compared the 2011 Bills to the 2005 Chargers

[Bill Cody]

Is it disarray because of Peters? or is he the only thing that's not. Say what you want but if we had Peters on this team I think we'd have a better team. As yes Erik Wood is a good guy but he's far from being a Nick Mangold and they were taken at equivalent spots in their respective drafts.

I think we'd be better with Peters and Nick Mangold, and we should have traded up 2 spots for Ben Rothlisberger. I'd also go with Orakpo over Maybin. In other news I love soft serve ice cream.

[OpIv37]

wow really? stop the presses

No you actually had no point and have been owned in this thread.

It actually doesn't matter whether Bell is a good LT or a bad LT in the context of giving Hairston snaps there, if he's good Bell will start and Hairston could be valuable depth, if he's bad Hairston could be another option. Letting him show what he can do is why we drafted him. Only the most warped view would see letting him play in preseason as anything but due dilligence.

You seem to not only object to us being bad but enjoy ridiculing any efforts we make to get better. Will Hairston work out? Nobody knows but finding out is the Bills point.

lmao- we're shuffling the OL around like crazy. Our LT has played like **** and now the coaches are trying a rookie in this thread. Even justa agreed that it's a possibility they're doing it because they're unhappy with Bell.

but I got owned? Whatever. If you don't see how desperate they are to find the right combination on the OL, I don't know what to tell you.

Adding talent is the only way to get better. Taking the guys who are BEHIND the guys who suck on the depth chart and letting them play is not an effort to get better. It's scraping the bottom of the barrel, like I originally said.

[OpIv37]

You seem to not only object to us being bad but enjoy ridiculing any efforts we make to get better. Will Hairston work out? Nobody knows but finding out is the Bills point.

And just for the record, this is EXACTLY what I mean when I say Bills fans have accepted mediocrity.

Finding more talent in the off-season is a way to get better. Keeping the same guy who was only OK last year then trying a rookie in his place 10 days before the season starts is NOT an attempt to get better. It's desperation.

If you honestly see this as a legitimate attempt to get better, then you have reduced standards and have truly accepted mediocrity.

[justasportsfan]

lmao- we're shuffling the OL around like crazy. Our LT has played like **** and now the coaches are trying a rookie in this thread. Even justa agreed that it's a possibility they're doing it because they're unhappy with Bell..

yeah I said it a possibility , but you're the one implying thats that the ONLY reason why.


Adding talent is the only way to get better. Taking the guys who are BEHIND the guys who suck on the depth chart and letting them play is not an effort to get better. It's scraping the bottom of the barrel, like I originally said.

I disagree. How are these draft picks supposed to improve if you don't let them play? Draft picks aren't always better than the guys in front of them but coaches start them anyways.

[justasportsfan]

And just for the record, this is EXACTLY what I mean when I say Bills fans have accepted mediocrity.

Finding more talent in the off-season is a way to get better. Keeping the same guy who was only OK last year then trying a rookie in his place 10 days before the season starts is NOT an attempt to get better. It's desperation.

If you honestly see this as a legitimate attempt to get better, then you have reduced standards and have truly accepted mediocrity.


you say you like Gailey and yet starting Hairston to see what he's got is not an attempt to get better.

[Bill Cody]

lmao- we're shuffling the OL around like crazy. Our LT has played like **** and now the coaches are trying a rookie in this thread. Even justa agreed that it's a possibility they're doing it because they're unhappy with Bell.

but I got owned? Whatever. If you don't see how desperate they are to find the right combination on the OL, I don't know what to tell you.

Adding talent is the only way to get better. Taking the guys who are BEHIND the guys who suck on the depth chart and letting them play is not an effort to get better. It's scraping the bottom of the barrel, like I originally said.

Yes you got owned. We could have the 93 Cowboys OL and we'd give our draft picks a chance to play in preseason for a whole host of reasons, potential injuries, increase OL flexibility, finding out what you have, hoping a player exceeds expectations (some do). All draft picks start at the bottom. It's only through playing they move up on depth charts (could you really be this dense?). Or are you telling us all that you know which draft picks have talent and which don't? Sorry you don't have the kind of knowledge.

We all know the OL is an area of weakness. Playing draft picks is one way to try to improve that situation, that's obvious and entirely necessary if we are to get better.

[alohabillsfan]

Why dont you do the world a favor and find the nearest bridge or tall building and....

[OpIv37]

you say you like Gailey and yet starting Hairston to see what he's got is not an attempt to get better.

it's not. It's desperation.

If they really wanted to get better, they would have upgraded Bell in the off-season.

If they really thought Hairston had a legit shot at being better than Bell, they would have given him an opportunity earlier in the pre-season.

Instead, they're just desperately trying the only play they have left: Plugging in Hairston and hoping he's better.

[Bill Cody]

And just for the record, this is EXACTLY what I mean when I say Bills fans have accepted mediocrity.

Finding more talent in the off-season is a way to get better. Keeping the same guy who was only OK last year then trying a rookie in his place 10 days before the season starts is NOT an attempt to get better. It's desperation.

If you honestly see this as a legitimate attempt to get better, then you have reduced standards and have truly accepted mediocrity.

Most teams start a certain number of rookies. The worse the team the more rookies get a chance. This isn't rocket science.

[OpIv37]

Yes you got owned. We could have the 93 Cowboys OL and we'd give our draft picks a chance to play in preseason for a whole host of reasons, potential injuries, increase OL flexibility, finding out what you have, hoping a player exceeds expectations (some do). All draft picks start at the bottom. It's only through playing they move up on depth charts (could you really be this dense?). Or are you telling us all that you know which draft picks have talent and which don't? Sorry you don't have the kind of knowledge.

We all know the OL is an area of weakness. Playing draft picks is one way to try to improve that situation, that's obvious and entirely necessary if we are to get better.

lmao- could you really be so dense that, after how horribly the OL has played in the off-season and all the shuffling that's going on, you really believe that the only reason for this is to give a rookie a shot in pre-season?

If you're that dense, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

This move is entirely necessary to get better NOW because we did NOTHING to address the OL this off-season. This is not the way to get better. It's a desperate attempt to get better because the other ways of getting better weren't properly utilized.

[OpIv37]

Most teams start a certain number of rookies. The worse the team the more rookies get a chance. This isn't rocket science.

once again, my point: this is not a good team.

[OpIv37]

Why dont you do the world a favor and find the nearest bridge or tall building and....

I think I'll just hang out on the bridge and wait for you, because after watching this team on Sunday afternoons, you're gonna want to jump off too.

[justasportsfan]

it's not. It's desperation.

If they really wanted to get better, they would have upgraded Bell in the off-season.

If they really thought Hairston had a legit shot at being better than Bell, they would have given him an opportunity earlier in the pre-season.

Instead, they're just desperately trying the only play they have left: Plugging in Hairston and hoping he's better.

BB must be desperate when he lets players play multiple position. Gotcha.

Like I siad, Gailey must be desperate when he lets Easely return kicks.

[psubills62]

lmao- we're shuffling the OL around like crazy. Our LT has played like **** and now the coaches are trying a rookie in this thread. Even justa agreed that it's a possibility they're doing it because they're unhappy with Bell.
Let's see, we moved Wood to center (where he belonged to begin with). Urbik is an OG, not really a shuffle there since he played there last year. Pears is an RT and played that way last year. Bell is an LT and is fighting Levitre who played there in a pinch last year. Levitre, if he doesn't beat out Bell for LT, will play LG. Where's the big shuffle, exactly? Competition does not equal shuffling. They've moved Wood to the position he should have been originally and moved Levitre to compete with Bell. That's it.


but I got owned? Whatever. If you don't see how desperate they are to find the right combination on the OL, I don't know what to tell you.

Adding talent is the only way to get better. Taking the guys who are BEHIND the guys who suck on the depth chart and letting them play is not an effort to get better. It's scraping the bottom of the barrel, like I originally said.
It's not scraping the bottom of the barrel because they aren't moving Hairston in front of Bell/Levitre. Where on earth are you getting this notion that suddenly he's jumping the depth chart?

All they said is they're going to play him at LT during the most meaningless preseason game there is. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of complaints, is what's really happening.

I don't know what to say...would you rather they act like they're happy with this OL?

[cookie G]

What he needed to work on was getting out of his stance quicker and sliding his feet better. I watched him in person last Saturday and the improvement was evident. He played well. Very strong.

I watched him pretty close on the replay, his feet were good. I don't mean quick, but he moved them well. Very little lunging, like far too many tackles do in the NFL.

He began moving them as soon as he came out of his stance and kept them moving until the whistle. He was even pretty good when a DE would try a COD move on him, he mirrored well.

He's big enough, and if he keeps his feet moving, he's got half the battle won. Not necessarily as a LT, but at least as a RT.

[psubills62]

lmao- could you really be so dense that, after how horribly the OL has played in the off-season and all the shuffling that's going on, you really believe that the only reason for this is to give a rookie a shot in pre-season?

If you're that dense, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

This move is entirely necessary to get better NOW because we did NOTHING to address the OL this off-season. This is not the way to get better. It's a desperate attempt to get better because the other ways of getting better weren't properly utilized.
How many times do people need to say it before you understand that Hairston isn't starting? He's still depth. This isn't a matter of improving the starting OL, it's a matter of seeing how he looks at LT, that's it.

[OpIv37]

It's not scraping the bottom of the barrel because they aren't moving Hairston in front of Bell/Levitre. Where on earth are you getting this notion that suddenly he's jumping the depth chart?

All they said is they're going to play him at LT during the most meaningless preseason game there is. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of complaints, is what's really happening.

I don't know what to say...would you rather they act like they're happy with this OL?

He's not "suddenly jumping up the depth chart." The coaches are giving him the opportunity because they WANT him to jump up the depth chart due to the fact that they aren't happy with what we already have.

Have you seen how Bell has played? Don't you think he might benefit from a few extra reps, even if they are preseason? I certainly do.

Here's the thing- you're giving me an option that's an invalid dichotomy. You're saying "would you rather they act like they're happy with this offensive line?" as if the only two possibilities are them being happy with the current OL or them desperately shuffling guys around. Well, maybe it's not entirely invalid, because they are the only options we have at this point.

But in reality, what I want is the FO to pay more attention to the OL and make better decisions so we don't get in this ****ing position in the first place.

[OpIv37]

How many times do people need to say it before you understand that Hairston isn't starting? He's still depth. This isn't a matter of improving the starting OL, it's a matter of seeing how he looks at LT, that's it.

it's a matter of seeing if he can potentially replace Bell and Levitre at LT because Bell sucks and Levitre is a natural G.

[alohabillsfan]

How many times do people need to say it before you understand that Hairston isn't starting? He's still depth. This isn't a matter of improving the starting OL, it's a matter of seeing how he looks at LT, that's it.


OP =

[OpIv37]

OP =

lmao, sure. Because every year I talk about how bad the team is going to be, and every year we go two rounds deep into the playoffs, right?

[Bill Cody]

once again, my point: this is not a good team.

Once again, we all know that. And no, that wasn't your point, you didn't have one.

[kingJofNYC]

Who's worse the Bills or the Irish?

[Bill Cody]

it's a matter of seeing if he can potentially replace Bell and Levitre at LT because Bell sucks and Levitre is a natural G.

Can we all agree if Hairston does turn out to be better that would be a good thing? But there are many reasons why he's seeing time, all of them valid, all things every team good and bad does with rookies in preseason. If you don't know that you're really a know nothing.

[alohabillsfan]

lmao, sure. Because every year I talk about how bad the team is going to be, and every year we go two rounds deep into the playoffs, right?


Really, who has said the Bills are going 2 rounds deep? It just gets very old listening to you b!tch and complain over and over and over and over and over and over again... Find yourself a woman (or same sex partner, if thats ur gig). PS, if you have a woman and are married we all pity her.:laughing:

[psubills62]

He's not "suddenly jumping up the depth chart." The coaches are giving him the opportunity because they WANT him to jump up the depth chart due to the fact that they aren't happy with what we already have.
They're simply looking at him. If he plays well, that does not mean he's going to be the starter. From what I know, he hasn't gotten a single look with the first team. Exactly what on earth has indicated that he'll see the field at all this season outside of injury?


Have you seen how Bell has played? Don't you think he might benefit from a few extra reps, even if they are preseason? I certainly do.
Maybe. But is a few extra reps worth risking the craphole we're in if he gets injured? I don't think so.


Here's the thing- you're giving me an option that's an invalid dichotomy. You're saying "would you rather they act like they're happy with this offensive line?" as if the only two possibilities are them being happy with the current OL or them desperately shuffling guys around. Well, maybe it's not entirely invalid, because they are the only options we have at this point.
Actually, I think there are two options - they're either happy with the OL (maybe parts of it more than others) or they aren't. It's pretty simple.


But in reality, what I want is the FO to pay more attention to the OL and make better decisions so we don't get in this ****ing position in the first place.
If they're unhappy with it, they'll pay attention to it. There were obviously other positions (DL, LB) that they've been more unhappy with. Given the fact that they seem patently unhappy with some of their players, I think it's worth giving them another offseason to see if they work on it.

[mysticsoto]

it's a matter of seeing if he can potentially replace Bell and Levitre at LT because Bell sucks and Levitre is a natural G.

I am in no way defending this Oline (though they played reasonably well last preseason game), but the last preseason game is pretty much to determine who stays, who goes and who gets PS'ed. Doesn't it make sense that pretty much every 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th stringer, etc are going to get some playing time to determine who stays and who goes. Hairston was drafted, but my have a long way to go. His play in this game may determine if he's capable enough to remain as a backup or if it's just better to PS him until he's closer to being ready.

There are alot of people fighting for roster spots and it doesn't make sense to have him keep one if he's nowhere close to being ready. Hairston, as with most rookies, was affected by the lockout and they need to see how far along he is and make a determination. The best way to do that is to see him play.

Again, I'm not defending the Oline in anyway here. Just saying that it makes sense to put him in and see what he has to offer.

[psubills62]

it's a matter of seeing if he can eventually potentially replace Bell and Levitre at LT because Bell sucks and Levitre is a natural G.
Fixed it for you. There's been nothing to indicate he'll see the field at all this year. Unless he's made major improvement in just a few weeks, that's a good thing. And if he has made major improvements, then great...maybe they did a decent job of drafting an OL for once.

Here's what's happening: Hairston is depth, period. He isn't going to start this year outside of injury. He's getting a look at LT in the 4th preseason, the most meaningless one. What exactly is the problem with that?

[Bill Cody]

lmao- could you really be so dense that, after how horribly the OL has played in the off-season and all the shuffling that's going on, you really believe that the only reason for this is to give a rookie a shot in pre-season?

If you're that dense, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

This move is entirely necessary to get better NOW because we did NOTHING to address the OL this off-season. This is not the way to get better. It's a desperate attempt to get better because the other ways of getting better weren't properly utilized.

Giving rookies a shot is why you draft them. And we're building this team through the draft so why wouldn't we, you make no sense. You hope some of them can start right away and some do. Others provide quality depth. If Hairston provides either that's a plus for the Bills. Only you could spin that as a negative. I'm looking forward to seeing what the kid has.

[OpIv37]

Really, who has said the Bills are going 2 rounds deep? It just gets very old listening to you b!tch and complain over and over and over and over and over and over again... Find yourself a woman (or same sex partner, if thats ur gig). PS, if you have a woman and are married we all pity her.:laughing:

Don't shoot the messenger.

When this team starts acting like an actual professional organization and starts winning games, you'll find that the complaints will go away. There are a few of you that complain about me complaining over and over and over again, but the reality is that the team makes the same mistakes over and over and over again, and if we are going to discuss the team realistically, then those mistakes are going to be brought up over and over and over again.

It's unfortunate, but it is what it is.

[justasportsfan]

Have you seen how Bell has played?
Yeah, he played well vs. Jaguars. Even Gailey praised him. He also praised Levitre. So there might be 2 possibilities like I said. Not just what you think.

[OpIv37]

Giving rookies a shot is why you draft them. And we're building this team through the draft so why wouldn't we, you make no sense. You hope some of them can start right away and some do. Others provide quality depth. If Hairston provides either that's a plus for the Bills. Only you could spin that as a negative. I'm looking forward to seeing what the kid has.

Huh?

I never said that Hairston shouldn't get a shot. I said the fact that Hairston is getting a shot is more involved than simply giving a rookie a chance.

And I love it how I'm the one "spinning" this. Some of you want to believe that this is just a rookie getting his shot, because then you don't have to face how desperate the OL situation really is.

[kingJofNYC]

We know how bad the OL is, we watch the games..

You did put a negative slant/spin on this. This is non-news. A player is getting a look at LT, big deal. And yet here we are arguing in circles over a non-issue.

The OL sucks, BREAKING NEWS!

Edit: Damn this coaching staff for preparing a player to play another position in case of injury!

[ddaryl]

For OP

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/funny-celebrity-pictures-john-goodman.jpg

[OpIv37]

We know how bad the OL is, we watch the games..

You did put a negative slants/spin on this. This is non-news. A player is getting a look at LT, big deal. And yet here were arguing in circles over a non-issue.

The OL sucks, BREAKING NEWS!

Edit: Damn this coaching staff for preparing a player to play another position in case of injury!

I didn't put a negative slant/spin on this.

The coaches are trying to find someone who can play LT because they don't like the guys we have there. You even admit yourself that the OL is bad, so I don't know why what I'm saying seems like "spin" to some of you.

That's not spin- that's reality. The coaches- and some of the posters here- are putting spin on it to make it seem as though it's just a rookie getting his shot.

Damn this coaching staff-and FO- for not having a better option at LT.

[Bill Cody]

Huh?

I never said that Hairston shouldn't get a shot. I said the fact that Hairston is getting a shot is more involved than simply giving a rookie a chance.

And I love it how I'm the one "spinning" this. Some of you want to believe that this is just a rookie getting his shot, because then you don't have to face how desperate the OL situation really is.

You said Gailey was "scraping the bottom of the barrel". That's your spin. Everyone can see this. And if you agree that Hairston should get a shot then what's the problem?

[OpIv37]

You said Gailey was "scraping the bottom of the barrel". That's your spin. Everyone can see this. And if you agree that Hairston should get a shot then what's the problem?

The problem is that if Hairston doesn't come out and look amazing at in his first preseason start, then we're ****ed at LT, at least for the short term.

[Bill Cody]

The problem is that if Hairston doesn't come out and look amazing at in his first preseason start, then we're ****ed at LT, at least for the short term.

I don't think anyone expects that including the coaches. I reject that this is why Hairston is playing, we've covered the reasons ad nauseum. I also reject that he's the bottom of the barrel until I get a chance to see what he's got with my own eyes. If you get a decent swing tackle that's a pretty damn good 5th round pick.

But this guy has the kind of frame/body that could be better than that. Part of the fun of building a team up is finding those diamonds in the rough. I feel sorry for you that you can't gain any enjoyment from the game other than W's and L's. But you can't stop me BWAHAHAHAHA!

[mayotm]

The problem is that if Hairston doesn't come out and look amazing at in his first preseason start, then we're ****ed at LT, at least for the short term.It has not been reported that he's going to start Thursday. Just that he will only get time at LT versus both LT and RT. Chris Brown speculates he may end up winning the swing tackle position. Thus, he needs to be able to play on both sides.

[OpIv37]

I don't think anyone expects that including the coaches. I reject that this is why Hairston is playing, we've covered the reasons ad nauseum. I also reject that he's the bottom of the barrel until I get a chance to see what he's got with my own eyes. If you get a decent swing tackle that's a pretty damn good 5th round pick.

But this guy has the kind of frame/body that could be better than that. Part of the fun of building a team up is finding those diamonds in the rough. I feel sorry for you that you can't gain any enjoyment from the game other than W's and L's. But you can't stop me BWAHAHAHAHA!

I don't think anyone expects it, but I do think they're desperately hoping that's what happens. There's a difference between hope and expectations.

And I'm not saying that Hairston himself is necessarily the bottom of the barrel in terms of talent, but he's a completely untested rookie. I meant that in terms of options at LT, throwing a rookie in and hoping that he's better than our starter from last year and our converted guard represents our coaches scraping the bottom of the barrel of available LT options.

[Bill Cody]

I don't think anyone expects it, but I do think they're desperately hoping that's what happens. There's a difference between hope and expectations.

And I'm not saying that Hairston himself is necessarily the bottom of the barrel in terms of talent, but he's a completely untested rookie. I meant that in terms of options at LT, throwing a rookie in and hoping that he's better than our starter from last year and our converted guard represents our coaches scraping the bottom of the barrel of available LT options.

LT's are hard to find and they're usually drafted and if they're any good held onto by the team that drafts them, usually taken early. Even if we had chosen upgrading OL over defense this year, something I don't agree we should have done, we would be hoping an untested rookie pans out if we started him. After all, all rookies are untested. I disagree signing some other teams castoff is the right solution to LT.

You're talking in circles and none of it makes any sense. You always come back to "we're a bad team". Saying that in 1000 different ways isn't news, it isn't interesting and it isn't even conversation. If we make LT our #1 or #2 priority next year it won't be looking for a free agent, it will be through the draft. But according to you that will be "scraping the bottom of the barrel". Wrong.

[OpIv37]

LT's are hard to find and they're usually drafted and if they're any good held onto by the team that drafts them, usually taken early. Even if we had chosen upgrading OL over defense this year, something I don't agree we should have done, we would be hoping an untested rookie pans out if we started him. After all, all rookies are untested. I disagree signing some other teams castoff is the right solution to LT.

You're talking in circles and none of it makes any sense. You always come back to "we're a bad team". Saying that in 1000 different ways isn't news, it isn't interesting and it isn't even conversation. If we make LT our #1 or #2 priority next year it won't be looking for a free agent, it will be through the draft. But according to you that will be "scraping the bottom of the barrel". Wrong.

I'm talking in circles? You're twisting my words and accusing me of saying something I've never said.

If we take a high draft pick next year as a solution to the LT situation next year, fine. But Hairston was NOT a high draft pick and he was NOT intended to play LT. But, we are trying him at LT because all of our other options at LT sucked. That's why using him is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

You're just like justa- you can't see the forest from the trees. You compare apples to oranges.

[Bill Cody]

I'm talking in circles? You're twisting my words and accusing me of saying something I've never said.

If we take a high draft pick next year as a solution to the LT situation next year, fine. But Hairston was NOT a high draft pick and he was NOT intended to play LT. But, we are trying him at LT because all of our other options at LT sucked. That's why using him is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

You're just like justa- you can't see the forest from the trees. You compare apples to oranges.

At least I can see trees. You can only see stumps. Noone other than you is suggesting Hairston is playing LT as a tryout for starting, SOMEONE has to be a backup, why not Hairston? The funny thing is if he ever did surprise you'd be criticizng the Bills for being lucky.

[OpIv37]

At least I can see trees. You can only see stumps. Noone other than you is suggesting Hairston is playing LT as a tryout for starting, SOMEONE has to be a backup, why not Hairston? The funny thing is if he ever did surprise you'd be criticizng the Bills for being lucky.

once again, putting words in my mouth. You are using an assumption of what you think I would say as the basis for an argument. That's a logical fallacy on numerous levels.

And no one other than me is saying it because seeing it my way means admitting the OL is an epic cluster****, and people are unwilling to do that.

[psubills62]

I'm talking in circles? You're twisting my words and accusing me of saying something I've never said.

If we take a high draft pick next year as a solution to the LT situation next year, fine. But Hairston was NOT a high draft pick and he was NOT intended to play LT. But, we are trying him at LT because all of our other options at LT sucked. That's why using him is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

You're just like justa- you can't see the forest from the trees. You compare apples to oranges.
Whoa, whoa... that bolded sentence is an assumption on your part. The article mentioned that he's more comfortable there, as he played there at Clemson. Also, he did alright on that side against Jacksonville.

So maybe, I know it's difficult to believe, but maybe they're simply trying him there because he's impressed them to this point and they're going to see exactly how comfortable he is at LT. I guarantee you they aren't viewing him as a starting option this year.

[OpIv37]

Whoa, whoa... that bolded sentence is an assumption on your part. The article mentioned that he's more comfortable there, as he played there at Clemson. Also, he did alright on that side against Jacksonville.

So maybe, I know it's difficult to believe, but maybe they're simply trying him there because he's impressed them to this point and they're going to see exactly how comfortable he is at LT. I guarantee you they aren't viewing him as a starting option this year.

you guarantee me based on what?

I said at the beginning of the thread that it was my opinion. You call me out on it anyway, then make a guarantee on something that you have no basis whatsoever?

Come on.

And yes, it is difficult to believe that he's impressed them to this point, because Bell certainly hasn't been impressive, and if Hairston has been impressive, then he should have gotten reps sooner. Everyone keeps telling me that Gailey isn't afraid to bench any player-regardless of how he was obtained- to get a better player on the field. Well, if that's true, then I'd have a hard time believing that Hairston has impressed them so far as you suggest.

[mayotm]

Op, in your lifetime, have you ever been wrong about anything? Is your real life personality as charming as your billszone personality?

[psubills62]

you guarantee me based on what?

I said at the beginning of the thread that it was my opinion. You call me out on it anyway, then make a guarantee on something that you have no basis whatsoever?

Come on.

And yes, it is difficult to believe that he's impressed them to this point, because Bell certainly hasn't been impressive, and if Hairston has been impressive, then he should have gotten reps sooner. Everyone keeps telling me that Gailey isn't afraid to bench any player-regardless of how he was obtained- to get a better player on the field. Well, if that's true, then I'd have a hard time believing that Hairston has impressed them so far as you suggest.
I guarantee you based on the evidence so far. Despite the fact that they have indeed looked unhappy with Bell, Hairston still has not gotten any reps in TC or practices (to my knowledge) with the first team. What evidence do you have that they're looking at him as a starter?

Maybe they know Hairston is a project (which he is), and don't want to push him with too much too fast. That can affect rookies, believe it or not. And he's looked good so far, but look who it's been against - Jacksonville 3rd and 4th stringers.

You seem to assume that if Hairston impresses them, that automatically means he's better than Bell. That is obviously not the case. Hairston started out as a big project as a rookie. From the comments people have made about his play against Jacksonville (including cookie's comments, which were an unexpected surprise, as he never compliments any Bills OL, except maybe Wood), it sounds like he did better than expected. That doesn't mean he suddenly is better than Bell.

[justasportsfan]

Whoa, whoa... that bolded sentence is an assumption on your part.

Negative assumptions as usual. He says he has no proof but now he's saying we're desperate like it's a definite.

He says he likes Gailey , yet he's telling us that this move by Gailey is not helping us improve. LOL. Since when is seeing a player play different postions not a good thing?


He says playing a player in a different position does not help to get better, yet Bellichick does it all the time.

OP wanted us to keep Peters, yet Peters was a TE who was moved to LT. :rolleyes:


OP is finding to ***** just as usual. I can't find the forrest from the trees, yet in his world there are no trees.

[Bill Cody]

once again, putting words in my mouth. You are using an assumption of what you think I would say as the basis for an argument. That's a logical fallacy on numerous levels.

And no one other than me is saying it because seeing it my way means admitting the OL is an epic cluster****, and people are unwilling to do that.

No

[OpIv37]

He says he likes Gailey , yet he's telling us that this move by Gailey is not helping us improve. LOL. Since when is seeing a player play different postions not a good thing?


He says playing a player in a different position does not help to get better, yet Bellichick does it all the time.

OP wanted us to keep Peters, yet Peters was a TE who was moved to LT. :rolleyes:



So, because I said I like Gailey, that means I have to agree with every move he makes until the end of time? Please.

And I never once complained about Hairston moving positions. I complained about our LT situation being so bad that we are desperately trying to find anyone on our OL who can play the position.

But, if you want to get off topic and go down that rabbit hole, fine. For every player who has successfully changed positions, there are two that haven't made it.

Poz from OLB to MLB
Chris Kelsay from DE to OLB
Coy Wire from S to LB
Arthur Moats from OLB to ILB

Just because Bellicheck can do it with the talent on that team doesn't mean we can get away with it with the lack of talent on our team. Once again, you are using the exception to prove the rule. Again.

Hey, remember how Jauron was going to be a good coach even though he failed before because Bellicheck succeeded in NE after failing in Cleveland?

Remember how Roscoe Parrish was supposed to be a good WR despite his size because Steve Smith was pretty much the same size?

Remember how Maybin was supposed to be successful because he was only a few pounds lighter than Dwight Freeney?

[justasportsfan]

And no one other than me is saying it because seeing it my way means admitting the OL is an epic cluster****, and people are unwilling to do that.

Hairston played LT in college. CJ Spiller lines up at wr because he's done it in college. So when Gailey lines CJ at wr it's because our wr is a cluster----. Gotcha.

[justasportsfan]

So, because I said I like Gailey, that means I have to agree with every move he makes until the end of time? Please.

And I never once complained about Hairston moving positions. I complained about our LT situation being so bad that we are desperately trying to find anyone on our OL who can play the position.

But, if you want to get off topic and go down that rabbit hole, fine. For every player who has successfully changed positions, there are two that haven't made it.

Poz from OLB to MLB
Chris Kelsay from DE to OLB
Coy Wire from S to LB
Arthur Moats from OLB to ILB

Just because Bellicheck can do it with the talent on that team doesn't mean we can get away with it with the lack of talent on our team. Once again, you are using the exception to prove the rule. Again.

Hey, remember how Jauron was going to be a good coach even though he failed before because Bellicheck succeeded in NE after failing in Cleveland?

Remember how Roscoe Parrish was supposed to be a good WR despite his size because Steve Smith was pretty much the same size?

Remember how Maybin was supposed to be successful because he was only a few pounds lighter than Dwight Freeney?


and how do we know if it works or not, YOU TRY IT. Never said every move works but you try anyways. Thats how you end up with Jason Peters and Geroge Wislons.

Since you went from "I have no proof to" "we are desperate" like it's fact, show me the proof. You have none other than your assumptions.

[X-Era]

You hear that scratching sound?

It's Chan scraping the bottom of the barrel.I don't consider Hairston bottom of the barrel. To Me he's better than Wrotto now and could push for a starting job by mid-season.

I was a huge fan of him in the draft and nothing I've seen so far has squelched that. I think he has a good future in the NFL and it;s a matter of time before he's one of our starters.

At LT, I think he has only borderline feet and may strruggle with speed rushers. But he's more nimble and light on his feet than he often gets credit for.

[DraftBoy]

I don't consider Hairston bottom of the barrel. To Me he's better than Wrotto now and could push for a starting job by mid-season.

I was a huge fan of him in the draft and nothing I've seen so far has squelched that. I think he has a good future in the NFL and it;s a matter of time before he's one of our starters.

At LT, I think he has only borderline feet and may strruggle with speed rushers. But he's more nimble and light on his feet than he often gets credit for.

Our disagreement on his scouting report aside, I still don't understand what Op's issue is here.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Our line sucks so bad who cares. Give the kid a shot.

[ddaryl]

Our disagreement on his scouting report aside, I still don't understand what Op's issue is here.

his issue is he can not help himself.. He is wired to find fault...

[Bill Cody]

once again, putting words in my mouth. You are using an assumption of what you think I would say as the basis for an argument. That's a logical fallacy on numerous levels.

And no one other than me is saying it because seeing it my way means admitting the OL is an epic cluster****, and people are unwilling to do that.

What a pile of gibberish.

[better days]

I think the Bills OL is scraping the bottom of the barrel myself, lets face it. Both tackle positions are unsettled as are the guards.

Wood at Center is the one sure thing & some people want to move him to guard which I think would be a big mistake.

The only way to climb up from the bottom of the barrel is to find players that can play which I think Chan is doing.

I would rather see what we have with Hairston than to see if an injured 32 year old Gurode can still play. And Jerry Jones has said Gurode was cut because he would not have been the starter this year & you can't pay a back up $5.5 Mil. I heard 6 teams are interested in him, but nobodys signed him yet. Who knows maybe he can't pass the physical.

[mysticsoto]

Our disagreement on his scouting report aside, I still don't understand what Op's issue is here.

Me either. I understand our Oline isn't great. That was established already. But this is the 4th preseason game - I wanted us to do this more last year - to give Carrington more reps, etc. We are actually doing it this year with Hairston getting some game experience. That's a good thing...

[Philagape]

Six pages about a guy who played LT in college getting depth reps at LT? SIX?

[YardRat]

I liked what I saw from Hairston against Jax and think he has a legit shot at being an LT at this level. A good one, too.

[DraftBoy]

I liked what I saw from Hairston against Jax and think he has a legit shot at being an LT at this level. A good one, too.

I didnt watch the game but Ive heard this numerous times.

Im curious who was he blocking during this time?

[YardRat]

I didnt watch the game but Ive heard this numerous times.

Im curious who was he blocking during this time?

I don't care who he was blocking...He's a rookie in the third preseason game of the year, and regardless of what 'string' may have been out there his opponents were more than likely better than some or most of who he faced in college. His footwork, hands, stature looked decent to me, and he appeared to be pretty comfortable.