Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

Thats why. Bridges got beat on the outside for a fumble. Yes his butt better recover. Then he got pushed back into the QB on the next play.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

So Bridges isn't a great LT. We still should have kept him. He's a tough, proven vet who could have helped a lot on the right side of the line.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=SBXVII;639958]Thats why. Bridges got beat on the outside for a fumble. Yes his butt better recover. Then he got pushed back into the QB on the next play.[/quote]

Exactly. He's just a stop gap and may not be playing with Zona next year.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=The Goat;639960]So Bridges isn't a great LT. We still should have kept him. He's a tough, proven vet who could have helped a lot on the right side of the line.[/quote]

Then why didn't he? He was here, so what happened?

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

I was all for Bridges when we signed him, but hes a OG not an OT....Hes getting his ARSE handed to him by the 49ers DL as we speak....

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=12thMan;639957]Dude so what. Seriously, what is it around here every time a released player goes to another team and performs it means that the front office effed up. It means nothing. People come and go in the NFL, bro. You win some, you lose some. Evaluating talent isn't an exact science. You act like we effin let Steve Hutchinson go or something! lol I wish people would get off their high horse and realize that sometimes.

How about Quinton Ganther. He's starting and producing isn't he? How about giving props for bringing in Sherm Lewis. How do you grade the front office on that move? And what about bringing DDocks back this year. He's been steady and has started every game to the best of my knowledge. And Levi Jones, while not great, has been holding it down big time.

Sometimes I think we nitpick just to bitch and moan.[/quote]

Well since O-line remains our biggest weakness, we are going to have to use draft picks and probably sign a guy or two. I think it was pretty stupid to let a guy go who shut down arguably the best pass rusher in the league.

Heyer, Batiste, & Montgomery are terrible. Bridges has started 80 games in the league. Who cares?

You are giving the FO credit for going into the season with no effective contigency plan if Randy Thomas and Samuels went down? They got lucky with Levi Jones. They also got lucky that Mike Williams can play guard. And btw. Heyer is still starting for us.

Let me know where I can get some of that koolaid...

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=12thMan;639962]Then why didn't he? He was here, so what happened?[/quote]


Heyer is the worst right tackle that I have seen. There is no way that he is better than Bridges.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

I think it's completely valid to discuss Bridges in hindsight, considering the mess we've had at OL all year. At the very least he would have been an improvement over the likes of Batiste, Montgomery, and of course Armstrong.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=Pocket$ $traight;639968]Well since O-line remains our biggest weakness, we are going to have to use draft picks and probably sign a guy or two. I think it was pretty stupid to let a guy go who shut down arguably the best pass rusher in the league.

Heyer, Batiste, & Montgomery are terrible. Bridges has started 80 games in the league. Who cares?

You are giving the FO credit for going into the season with no effective contigency plan if Randy Thomas and Samuels went down? They got lucky with Levi Jones. They also got lucky that Mike Williams can play guard. And btw. Heyer is still starting for us.

Let me know where I can get some of that koolaid...[/quote]

No, I'm not giving the front office a pass at all. All I'm saying is for every Bridges that we point out, there's at least two good moves the team has benefitted from. We need to address the offensive line this offseason, but I can assure you that Bridges isn't the answer either. We'll be and have been fine without him.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=Mattyk72;639971]I think it's completely valid to discuss Bridges in hindsight, considering the mess we've had at OL all year. At the very least he would have been an improvement over the likes of Batiste, Montgomery, and of course Armstrong.[/quote]

Matty, the guy is playing like crap tonight. Seriously?

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=12thMan;639974]Matty, the guy is playing like crap tonight. Seriously?[/quote]

Batiste & Montgomery?

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=12thMan;639974]Matty, the guy is playing like crap tonight. Seriously?[/quote]

I'm with Matty. The guy also shut down Jared Allen last week.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=GMScud;639992]I'm with Matty. The guy also shut down Jared Allen last week.[/quote]

One good game doesn't make it a bad move by our F.O. is all I'm arguing. Honestly, Bridges, Batiste, Montgomery, Heyer...you can have them all. And Heyer has had a few good outings this year.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=12thMan;639996]One good game doesn't make it a bad move by our F.O. is all I'm arguing. Honestly, Bridges, Batiste, Montgomery, Heyer...you can have them all. And Heyer has had a few good outings this year.[/quote]

Bridges is better than at least 3 of the O-lineman on our roster. All I'm saying.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=GMScud;639997]Bridges is better than at least 3 of the O-lineman on our roster. All I'm saying.[/quot}

Really? Which three? Because our offensive line has given up considerably less sacks over the past four or five weeks.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=12thMan;640001][quote=GMScud;639997]Bridges is better than at least 3 of the O-lineman on our roster. All I'm saying.[/quot}

Really? Which three? Because our offensive line has given up considerably less sacks over the past four or five weeks.[/quote]


Lol. Heyer - who still doesn't know the snap count. Montgomery. Batiste. Reinhart. Paul Fainaka. William Robinson.

I like Mike Williams and think there may be some upside but I think you could even say that Bridges is better than him.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=GMScud;639992]I'm with Matty. The guy also shut down Jared Allen last week.[/quote]

I remember when we were talking about Heyer shutting down Michael Strahaan a couple of yrs ago.......1 good game does not equal a great OT

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

I wish we had kept Bridges myself, but the coaching staff felt guys like Batisted and Heyer had more long-term upside. Not a move I agree with. Bridges is a proven starting G/T. He's had more good games than bad in his career and more good than Heyer. N

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=ChickenMonkey;640005]I remember when we were talking about Heyer shutting down Michael Strahaan a couple of yrs ago.......[B]1 good game does not equal a great OT[/B][/quote]

Did I say anywhere that he's "great?" Not even close. I just think he's considerably better than at least 3 (probably more) of the O-lineman currently on our roster.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=ChickenMonkey;640005]I remember when we were talking about Heyer shutting down Michael Strahaan a couple of yrs ago.......1 good game does not equal a great OT[/quote]


I don't think any of these guys are great. I think Bridges is average and all of the guys that I listed are below average and a few should not be in the league.

My main point is that in our weakest link on the team, you cannot afford to toss aside a guy who has started 80 games in the league for guys who at best belong on a practice squad.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=GMScud;639997]Bridges is better than at least 3 of the O-lineman on our roster. All I'm saying.[/quote]

No doubt about this. In fact you could say he's better than two of our starters (all season long) considering Heyer as been at RT and RG has been a carousel of a compromised Thomas, then Rinehart, Montgomery, Williams (anybody I forgot?).

I'm willing to give our FO credit where credit is actually do.

Good decisions:
*Drafting the trio of Malcom, Devin and Fred last season. Seemed weird at the time but it was good, good stuff.
*Signing Al.
*Signing Hall.

Bad decisions: Everything else, literally. But the decision-making on the OL specifically should be enough to get the FO "fired" in most franchises. What a sh*tshow. Like others have said Heyer should be practice team fodder.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

I was shocked when they cut him. They said it was his poor play, but I saw alot of other players playing alot worse.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

Im still thinking we need at least 2 new starters on the Oline next year...one tackle and RG. I think Heyer and Levi Jones battle it out for the other Tackle position. Mike Williams is good depth as well as Reinhart...dont really think they are starters in this league...cutting Bridges was a mistake by the team and would have been substantial help what we faced early in the season, but that is what we do here, so really no surprise...

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=Chico23231;640039]Im still thinking we need at least 2 new starters on the Oline next year...one tackle and RG. I think Heyer and Levi Jones battle it out for the other Tackle position. Mike Williams is good depth as well as Reinhart...dont really think they are starters in this league...cutting Bridges was a mistake by the team and would have been substantial help what we faced early in the season, but that is what we do here, so really no surprise...[/quote]

Mike Williams has been a pleasant surprise at guard. I actually think he could be better next year if he continues to keep his weight down & work out in the offseason.

Would I like to see a young Steve Hutchinson type in his place? Of course, but if they don't get a guard & plan to use MW in the meantime, I think that would be alright.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=SmootSmack;640007]I wish we had kept Bridges myself, but the coaching staff felt guys like Batisted and Heyer had more long-term upside. Not a move I agree with. Bridges is a proven starting G/T. He's had more good games than bad in his career and more good than Heyer. N[/quote]

With the state of our line the long-term upside decision was retarded. We didn't need long term upside. We neeed guys who play football now.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

I am not sure on Bridges. I saw him last night getting into the face of Hightower after he fumbled. It didn't look like a "positive" chewing out, but a very aggressive one. Reminded me of his past issues. Not really saying it is the only factor, but something about that interaction looked way off to me. So I wonder if there was more than just ability at issue when he was here.

On the other hand, he certainly has ability, and it's a fair question about cutting him, when our OL was shaky to begin with.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;640063]I am not sure on Bridges. I saw him last night getting into the face of Hightower after he fumbled. It didn't look like a "positive" chewing out, but a very aggressive one. Reminded me of his past issues. Not really saying it is the only factor, but something about that interaction looked way off to me. So I wonder if there was more than just ability at issue when he was here.

On the other hand, he certainly has ability, and it's a fair question about cutting him, when our OL was shaky to begin with.[/quote]

yeah, after he got in Hightower's face he then got beat for 3 sacks by Amhad Brooks, 2 of which were fumbles. At least Bridges recovered one of the fumbles.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=freddyg12;640051]Mike Williams has been a pleasant surprise at guard. I actually think he could be better next year if he continues to keep his weight down & work out in the offseason.

Would I like to see a young Steve Hutchinson type in his place? Of course, but if they don't get a guard & plan to use MW in the meantime, I think that would be alright.[/quote]

I agree, Williams actually has been a surprise at guard which is cool, but at tackle he was getting his ass handed to him. I most def see value with him as depth on the line...so if he can push a starter for playing time next season could be a plus

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

a little off topic...but what happened to Will Montgomery? Is he even on the team anymore?

Starter to disappearing act.

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=maroonandblack30;640136]a little off topic...but what happened to Will Montgomery? Is he even on the team anymore?

Starter to disappearing act.[/quote]




Not exactly positive about this but I believe his assignment is to be the first guy off the field to get to the locker room door so he can hold it open for everyone else...

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

[quote=FRPLG;640052]With the state of our line the long-term upside decision was retarded. We didn't need long term upside. We neeed guys who play football now.[/quote]

Well the upside for Batiste apparently wasn't that good. Redskins just cut him

Re: RI: Jeremy Bridges agrees to terms
 

Correct me if I'm wrong but once guys have been here a while wouldn't it be their positional coaches that decide whether they are keepers or not?

Vinny seems to get the blame for everything but surely Buges must at least have had a big say in letting Bridges go?