SUMMARY: Despite leading the Titans in tackles the last four seasons, LB Keith Bulluck is never satisfied. "He is always striving to get better. And he should be in a position to do that this year," said LB Coach Dave McGinnis. "Now it is not a one-man show. The (NFL) is not a one-man show at all. He, by no means, is saying he has to do it all. But he has to do everything he does at a top level and if he continues to do that ... it will be huge for us." Bulluck's goals are to finish with 10 sacks, which would be twice as many as he had last season, and to total at least 150 tackles again. Free-agent linebacker David Thornton could help Bulluck reach those goals. Putting Bulluck and Thornton on opposite sides of veteran Peter Sirmon in the middle makes for a talented trio. "I am just going to let it play out," Bulluck said. "As far as them coming in and helping me, we'll see. If I am freed up more, then it happens, but I am getting myself to play the best football I have ever played."
What do you think about this article? Post your comments below.
What do you think about this article? Post your comments below.
I'd like to see number #53 connect with #32. When I think of Bulluck last year I think of the Pacman turmoil. He may had been on the side of justice there but I'd like to see those two truly bury the hatchet. Some of the coverage breakdowns may have been a product of lack of communication/chemistry etc... those means will not meet Bulluck's desired ends... I'd like to see Bulluck slap Pac on the back of the helmet or something. I just want to see a sign that all is truly well. Pac has the potential to be a leader... he's has the mouth and the lungs that is for sure... all he needs is a message. I just want Bulluck to set an example for Pac and the entire team... I want to see Bulluck be a better field general in 2006.
Go #53! Go #32! Go D! Go Titans!
Go #53! Go #32! Go D! Go Titans!
Improved comms will be a plus. I think Sirmon might be more influential in that regard...at least in getting the defense set. Whatever it takes, and however they do it, I'm just ready to see some nasty defense again!!!
LazyManJackson said:
OK. I may be old, but I'm slow. I don't get it.
yeaah whatever man but it should be really exciting to have Bulluck and Thornton opposite of each other...
that would be an inequality. It reads Bulluck is less than Manning. Brush up on your math LazyMan... I think you meant it the other way. :coltssuk:H Man said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality
10 sacks? Well players always seem to set lofty goals, but that'd be sweet. I'm thinking he set the same goal for last year.
I don't think he had as good a year last year as he did in 04. I thought he actually looked slower at times.
I don't think he had as good a year last year as he did in 04. I thought he actually looked slower at times.
Bulluck wasn't as good in 04, but it hurt him to have such crap around him. That's not why he missed tackles and such, but he was overextended in general. If he can return to dominance this season, with Thornton and Sirmon stepping up, we could have a very nice defense.
bigtitan53279 said:
Looked like he blitzed quite a bit last year. Enough to expect 10 sacks? I don't know, but probably not. But expecting those kinda #'s from a 4-3 olb is asking for a lot.
Maybe with the changes in the D this year we'll start to resemble Fisher's favoured 46 defence again with blitzes coming from every where. Bulluck says we're gonna get nasty again!
Adam and Keith do have a great friendship and have put last season behind them. The entire defense is having fun. However, the field general and yapping mouth on the field is going to be David Thornton. He brings great energy and also fun to the field. I have a feeling this defense is going to return to it's glory days of '99. Back when opposing teams were getting punched in the mouth.SEC 330 BIPOLAR said:
And I'm predicting Keith gets 11 sacks this season.
I can hear Thorton now...
"C'mon Peyton! Choke it baby! Choke on 2!!
Choke like ya did in the divisionals!"
That would be so funny if he taunted him the whole game...
maybe even mentioned some kind of garbage only Colts players know about. Who knows what kind of dorky things choke master p has done behind closed doors. I'd love it if they miked the dude up (ain't gonna happen) and we heard him go "Romo" on him!!! hahaha ... Romo of course is a reference to this talented smart alek.
this is one of the finest smack talkers in the game imho.
"C'mon Peyton! Choke it baby! Choke on 2!!
Choke like ya did in the divisionals!"
That would be so funny if he taunted him the whole game...
maybe even mentioned some kind of garbage only Colts players know about. Who knows what kind of dorky things choke master p has done behind closed doors. I'd love it if they miked the dude up (ain't gonna happen) and we heard him go "Romo" on him!!! hahaha ... Romo of course is a reference to this talented smart alek.
this is one of the finest smack talkers in the game imho.
no problem. ie. 32>53 ... simple. it's called the rule of pacman. pacman always eats the bigger number, yes? a-ha... always make the pacman eat the larger number and gobble gobble, it's all good...:yes: <-- oh snap bipolar is taking over!!! Someone must really like the yes smilie!!! The yes smilie kicks butt :yes: yes yes.. I have had a yellow nodding yes man in my signiture for some time now. I found it roaming f2fa message boards. The jetsinsider has a dazzing array of smilies, (no laughter, I thought that was strange) ... just the same, the use of the yes is very yes yes. YES? okay then:yes:LazyManJackson said:
I thought Pacman ate the smaller number, i.e. 32>53....snicker, snicker.......
Bobo said:
i agree
it's possible for an olb to accomplish that, but there would need to be some serious breakdown with opposing offenses and/or there would need to be some scripts designed specifically with that intent
he could get 10, but i think it'd have to come in a few2+ sack games
askbipolar.com
it's pointing to less and open mouth to the larger.
ie
53 > 32 = #53 is greater than #32 see :yes: very simple.
32 < 53 = #32 is less than #53 :brow:
no dice?
bah!:evil:
no no no... it's all right here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequalityelfinmagic53 said:
it's pointing to less and open mouth to the larger.
ie
53 > 32 = #53 is greater than #32 see :yes: very simple.
32 < 53 = #32 is less than #53 :brow:
no dice?
bah!:evil:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
