sonnyboy said:
1) Agree. McNabb was not the same player it seemed from the start of the season and obviously got worse as the injury worsened.
2) This offensive line did very well against the NFC East teams the first time it went up against them with Flozell Adams. It did poorly the second go round without him. I think it's that simple.
It is my opinion, my speculation, my prognostication...that the 2006 Cowboy OL will be better than the 2005 OL.
1)Koiser is an upgrade over the 2005 version of Allen.
2)The 2006 Pettiti or Fabini will be better than the 2005 Pettiti.
3)The 2006 Rivera will be better than the injured 2005 Rivera.
4)The 2006 OL has better depth than the 2005 OL and will weather a major
loss much better.
Although I still believe our OL is the weakest unit on the team, I'm convinced that it should be better than the 2005 OL. Perhaps even better than the 2005 OL with Adams.
1) McNabb is good until somebody puts the clamps down. It's when he feels the pressure (big game, game on the line, etc) he starts to make bad decisions IMO. See 2004 SB, and last years' 1st Skins game (who exactly was he throwing at when he throw it into Ryan Clark's numbers?) and the Cowboys game (again, what was the point of that throw, i didn't see anyone near RW). So, with the improved NFC East, I think you'll be seeing a lot more close games and until McNabb can prove that he can win them, I don't really see them being THAT much better.
2)I don't know about the Giants or Eagles, but after watching the 2nd Skins game again I have this to say. Yes, Daniels did beat Tucker for 4 sacks, but if you look at the whole game, it was like a jailbreak just about every play. I think the whole Washington DL out-played just about every position on the OL. So I don't see just adding one LT position would have helped all that much.
As far as your prediction...
1) Kosier is going to be a very slight upgrade on run blocking. He won't be able to consistently block his man in front of him, and is hardly good at the second level. But it's better then asking Larry Allen to pull. But he's a definite downgrade in pass-blocking. He just lacks the strength. In pass blocking mobility doesn't matter all that much.
2) 2006 Petteti or Fabini is an upgrade, but it remains to be seen how much.
3) 2006 Rivera doesn't necessarily have to be better then the still injured (supposedly) 2005 Rivera. He's 34 years old, he just might have gotten worse. It happens, ask Larry Allen (35 years old last season, and he was way over the hump according to you, so why is it different for Rivera?)
4) I agree on the depth issue, and you won't see the same drop-off in talent. But I still think that the 2006 O-line is mediocre at best, with the loss of a starter could turn to horrible.
One more issue to throw a kink in your greatly improved 2006 O-line idea. So Rivera took over a year to recover from an injury, yet you expect 31 year old Adams to be 100% at the start of next season. Knee injuries take a while to heal and sometimes it doesn't all the way. Especially a concern for somebody his age.
Now, before you can issue the argument "But Bill Parcells says Adams is 100% and Parcells knows what he's talking about!" Well of course he said that! IF (and I admit it's a big if) Adams has lingering effects of his injury, do you really expect Parcells to say "Man, Adams still isn't doing well, I sure hope nobody blitzes to that side". It's called deception and the point is so opponents think your weakness is actually your strength.
" means don't take what was said serious!
