Losing L. Allen, gaining K. Kosier - pros and cons

[Alexander]

Has Larry Allen slipped? Of course. Is he still better than Kosier? No doubt

It's truely sad when fans have so little loyalty towards great players that they turn on them the minute they are no longer dominant and no longer on their team. As soon as we sign Kosier, he is the flavor of the month and LA is a washed up has been who has no right playing on the same field and the almighty Kyle Kosier.

I have no loyalty for a player when their play slips. Sorry if that is cold-blooded but it is a reality. When they become a liability (which Allen was for what we wanted to accomplish in our scheme), then I am so sorry, but I won't praise them for what they did in the past.

And honestly, who on earth is going to say Kosier is a "better" player? That's ridiculous. An average player against a sure-fire Hall of Famer. But I will say this, I believe Kosier is a better fit for our offense and will give more effort and probably will be more effective. That doesn't make him "better", just a more precise fit.

That's the only reasonable debate to have on the subject. Otherwise you are butting your head against a wall for no reason. I don't think any sane person thinks Kosier is "better". But it's much easier for those who give points based on tenure to lament the loss of Allen, when the reality is probably that he wasn't a good fit any longer and hadn't been for several years.

 

[Vintage]

and esp. when you're talking about a position such as OG and C, the casual fan can't name more than 10 starting OGs and Cs in this league, and yes, I mean combined, so when you hear about Larry Allen 5 years ago, and how great he was, and notice that he's still playing, you'd be inclined to choose him for his rep rather than by actually watching the games

For OL, especially.

But for QB's? I think even a casual fan can list 10 QB's. Maybe I am giving them too much credit...

But even a casual fan can appreciate the electricity Vick brings to a football field (both good and bad). And that sparks entertainment; which is what the Pro Bowl is really about IMO.

If they want it to be merit based, they should let the coaches choose their roster or something to that effect.

 

[The30YardSlant]

sure HeavyHerpes

What are you, 8? Crap like that stopped being funny in 8th grade.

Here, let me try:

**** summerisdummer, HAHA I WIN!!!

and if only LA and Kosier were equal in speed would your argument hold any water, but IMO, teams would rather take a guy who's both strong and fast over one who's just strong

So you freely admit that your arguement holds no water? Good to know. Now that we have that out of the way, let's address the rest of this mindless babble.

My arguement is that strength is more important that speed, thus, even though Kosier is somewhat fatser than LA, LA is still better because he is far, far stronger.

And just for the reocrd, Kosier is fairly weak in terms of offensive guards. He only benches 225 21 times, not a good number for a guard in the NFL.

Again, please continue playing the role of my personal bucketboy, I find it pretty humorous, especially the fact that you think you are proving something other than your undying ignorance in regards to everything athletic.

 

[The30YardSlant]

And honestly, who on earth is going to say Kosier is a "better" player?

The football genius that is summerisfunner seems to think so, as do half the people posting in this thread

 

[DLCassidy]

Has Larry Allen slipped? Of course. Is he still better than Kosier? No doubt

It's truely sad when fans have so little loyalty towards great players that they turn on them the minute they are no longer dominant and no longer on their team. As soon as we sign Kosier, he is the flavor of the month and LA is a washed up has been who has no right playing on the same field and the almighty Kyle Kosier.

It has to end for even the great ones sometime, right? There's so much money involved, who can blame any great player for continuing as long as the money is out there? But does that mean the fans are disloyal to see when the emperor has no clothes? I would have been ok if we brought LA back. But I can also completely understand why they didn't. I can also understand why NE didn't bring McGinest back and McGinest had a better year than LA did. Kosier will be ok.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

What are you, 8? Crap like that stopped being funny in 8th grade.

well my nickname for you is apt, you're like herpes, a disease that can be treated (owned in every argument) yet won't go away

So you freely admit that your arguement holds no water?

no, since I told you that NFL people would prefer a player who is both strong and can move around

My arguement is that strength is more important that speed, thus, even though Kosier is somewhat fatser than LA, LA is still better because he is far, far stronger.

and my point is that who cares how stronger someone is, if someone else is both strong, and can move around? what is strength gonna get LA when he can't get out and hit people like we need?

And just for the reocrd, Kosier is fairly weak in terms of offensive guards. He only benches 225 21 times, not a good number for a guard in the NFL.

I've only read that he's strong and quick, show me something that says Kosier is weak for a OG and I'll believe you, I know you and facts don't get along, so this might be a good time to finally introduce yourself to them

your undying ignorance in regards to everything athletic.

hmmm, yet you told us that LA was more talented than Kosier despite having less mobility

 

[Bob Sacamano]

The football genius that is summerisfunner seems to think so, as do half the people posting in this thread

you damn straight I think so, for what we need, Kosier is the better player

 

[The30YardSlant]

I've only read that he's strong and quick

That's all I needed to hear. Thanks for clearing up the fact that you havent actually SEEN him play, you've just read that he is "strong and quick".

Again, good to know, bucketboy

 

[The30YardSlant]

you damn straight I think so, for what we need, Kosier is the better player

By "what we need", do you mean a relatively weak offensive guard who has trouble blocking second level defenders on sweeps?

 

[Alexander]

you damn straight I think so, for what we need, Kosier is the better player

Semantics.

Better fit for what we want. Better skill set. Not a better player overall. That's pretty simple to me.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

That's all I needed to hear. Thanks for clearing up the fact that you havent actually SEEN him play, you've just read that he is "strong and quick".

I watched the video of Kosier that theebs put on the board, I definitely didn't see a strength problem, and I haven't read of one either

you got nothing but 1 video clip, so what? I watched the Oakland game and saw LA getting owned by Warren Sapp, sorry if I don't take the word of someone who gets constantly owned by Gamebreaker of all people

 

[The30YardSlant]

well my nickname for you is apt, you're like herpes, a disease that can be treated (owned in every argument) yet won't go away

Ignoring the fact that that makes little to no grammatical sense, it is maybe the worst analogy I've ever read on a message board, and that's including Nors' Testeverde/Crypt Keeper comparisons.

 

[Alexander]

By "what we need", do you mean a relatively weak offensive guard who has trouble blocking second level defenders on sweeps?

Where are you digging up this weakness and inability to block on sweeps? Based off what observation? If you have gleaned that off of what I have seen, you have a sharper eye than anyone here on this board. I sense it is a BS statement, but to each their own. I think the scouts did their homework on Kosier.

I can however state with a clear conscience that Larry Allen was a powerful offensive guard who legitimately had trouble blocking on the second level and has had that problem for years. That's obvious.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

By "what we need", do you mean a relatively weak offensive guard who has trouble blocking second level defenders on sweeps?

you have any proof that Kosier is a "relatively weak guard"?

 

[Vintage]

Who is this legend Nors' I keep hearing about?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Semantics.

Better fit for what we want. Better skill set. Not a better player overall. That's pretty simple to me.

define overall please

cuz by my interpretation of the meaning, LA wasn't a better overall OG last year

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Ignoring the fact that that makes little to no grammatical sense, it is maybe the worst analogy I've ever read on a message board, and that's including Nors' Testeverde/Crypt Keeper comparisons.

not my fault you're still a virgin, so that you don't have to worry about the dangers of STDs, so thus you can't understand my analogy

 

[Alexander]

you have any proof that Kosier is a "relatively weak guard"?

Why that one play of course.

Why people cannot just admit they don't know a thing about Kosier beyond brief glimpses is beyond me. No need to make it up or draw conclusions based off one play posted ad nauseum.

 

[The30YardSlant]

I watched the video of Kosier that theebs put on the board, I definitely didn't see a strength problem, and I haven't read of one either

you got nothing but 1 video clip, so what? I watched the Oakland game and saw LA getting owned by Warren Sapp, sorry if I don't take the word of someone who gets constantly owned by Gamebreaker of all people

Are you talking about the sack that Warren Sapp got by blowing by Al Johnson?

And would this be the same Gamebreaker whom I tore apart when he claimed that Brunell could sling the pigskin better than Drew Bledsoe? Again

Good call bucketboy, well done

 

[Hoov]

HH,

F=MxA, so speed does play a vital role.

And i think an arguement for how good an OLinemen is should be based on how he blocks his man, not how much he bench presses. The player that makes the block that allows a play to be successful more often would be the better player.