The O-line isn't always to blame

[Guest dog14787]

You've got to be joking.

 

If you really don't understand my point, then I'm afraid I'll need to simplify it for you: QB > OL

 

That clear it up?

 

I've proven it in post after post, with stat after stat, and example after example, and the only response you've ever had is to toss around a blanket statement: "it all starts up front". That's it. That's all you've ever refuted me with, and it doesn't hold water when you actually look at the facts.

 

Then in this very post you trumpet that coaches like Shanahan and Cowher "all know you have to pass protect and run block in this league to be successful". Really? Is that why Cowher's 2005 Superbowl team allowed 32 sacks, 1 more than the Detroit Lions, who won 5 games that year? I know it wasn't Cowher's team, but how great was the OL when Pittsburgh's 2008 Superbowl team allowed 49 sacks (4th most in the NFL) and ranked 23rd in rushing? For that matter, run blocking must've been essential when the 2006-07 Colts ranked 18th in the NFL in rushing and won the Superbowl, right? Perhaps the OL was the main reason for the success of the 2003 Patriots, who ranked 27th in rushing and allowed 32 sacks en route to a Superbowl victory? There's always the 2002-03 Buccaneers to acknowledge as well, who won the Superbowl allowing 41 sacks (tied for 10th most in the NFL) and toting the league's 27th ranked rushing attack. How important was the offensive line when the 2001 Patriots won the Superbowl with the 13th ranked rushing attack and gave up 46 sacks (tied for 9th most in the league with--get this--Buffalo). Do you even pretend to research your points?

 

I'll say it one last time, and then I'll move on: it's the QB, not the OL.

 

 

Dude seriously, your argument is stupid as hell. You are not going to convince me or anyone else with a brain that a good QB can erase a bad O-line. You pick a team here and there that probably represents 3% of the teams in the NFL and think you made a good point when the other 97% of the teams in the NFL don't follow the same rule of thumb.

 

Bandit I think someone may have stolen your brain.

[thewildrabbit]

Typing it in caps doesn't make it true.

 

Try pleading your case to the 2008 Steelers.

 

Or the 2009 Titans.

Big Ben is about the ONLY QB currently playing in the NFL that can get it done with a less then stellar O line. Just because he gets sacked a bunch doesn't necessarily mean it is because of the O line either, he holds on to the ball to long a ton, but he can get away with it by moving around and avoiding the pass rush. The guy is so big he is very difficult to tackle and sack.

Besides that 08 Steeler line had a hella lot more experience then this years Buffalo Bills. Plus they had the best defense in the NFL last year which helped win a bunch of games.

 

Again your comparing a top QB in the NFL who is indeed very special, to a very average QB. Schonert had Edwards in the shotgun about 70% of the time last season, everyone knew when the Bills were passing. This season he has a rookie play caller who was hired two weeks before the start of the season and everyone expects him to play great despite the crap offensive line and rookie OC.

 

Still, I wonder how well Big Ben would play behind the horrid Bills line game after game. One severe concussion could ruin his whole season, or entire career.

[Guest dog14787]

Big Ben is about the ONLY QB currently playing in the NFL that can get it done with a less then stellar O line. Just because he gets sacked a bunch doesn't necessarily mean it is because of the O line either, he holds on to the ball to long a ton, but he can get away with it by moving around and avoiding the pass rush. The guy is so big he is very difficult to tackle and sack.

Besides that 08 Steeler line had a hella lot more experience then this years Buffalo Bills. Plus they had the best defense in the NFL last year which helped win a bunch of games.

 

Again your comparing a top QB in the NFL who is indeed very special, to a very average QB. Schonert had Edwards in the shotgun about 70% of the time last season, everyone knew when the Bills were passing. This season he has a rookie play caller who was hired two weeks before the start of the season and everyone expects him to play great despite the crap offensive line and rookie OC.

 

Still, I wonder how well Big Ben would play behind the horrid Bills line game after game. One severe concussion could ruin his whole season, or entire career.

 

 

Good logic as usually rabbit,

 

The possibilities of injury is why you must protect the most important player on the team, the QB.

[Alaska Darin]

So you are telling me to shut my mouth based on a stat that isn't real, brilliant.

The stat is quite real. I'm not surprised you're having a hard time understanding that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Ever think maybe Aaron Rodgers wouldn't have happy feet if the line blocked better because I do.

I'm sure that's a part of it. He also wouldn't have feet that were as happy if he made the right pre-snap read and got rid of the ball in a timely manner the 60% of the time he was the one making the mistake.

Same can be said for Big Ben and the Steeler's Buddy, but it doesn't change the fact that they both have sup par O-lines.

So these things are completely equal because the BILLS are just like the Steelers in every other way? No offense buddy, but the BILLS aren't a QB away from being 6-3 and the defending World Champions.

[thewildrabbit]

A few more things...

 

This current Buffalo Bills offensive scheme is total crap IMO, the last two seasons they have had very inferior play callers and lousy protection schemes. They had a rookie offensive line coach last year and he is in his second year this year.

 

How often do you see Big Ben get nailed by safety blitzer who came clean because nobody touched him on his blind side and then proceeded to drive him into the turf.

 

The current Buffalo offense needs a complete overhaul,O line, protections, formations, play calls, players in many positions.

 

Jauron was a great guy and all, but a horrid coach at finding assistants. I'll be greatly surprised if the next head coach keeps anyone from this current staff, except for perhaps Bobby April.

[Guest dog14787]

The stat is quite real. I'm not surprised you're having a hard time understanding that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

Show me this stat you speak of on a stat line. Oh so by saying a good QB doesn't make a bad O-line go away I don't know what I'm talking about yet you offer zero by way of argument

 

I'm sure that's a part of it. He also wouldn't have feet that were as happy if he made the right pre-snap read and got rid of the ball in a timely manner the 60% of the time he was the one making the mistake.

 

So the great numbers Aaron Rodgers is putting up despite the bad O-line are stemming from bad reads and holding the ball to long, brilliant

 

So these things are completely equal because the BILLS are just like the Steelers in every other way? No offense buddy, but the BILLS aren't a QB away from being 6-3 and the defending World Champions.

 

I'm not sure what your point is here ,but like everything else there probably isn't one.

[timba]

No matter who the QB is, they will not perform BETTER with a bad OL. There are definitely QB's in the league that CAN perform with a poor OL (Peyton Manning, Big Ben, Tom Brady, Drew Brees), but they cannot make the line play better.

 

Unless we are picking up a VET like one of those guys, the line needs to be addressed first. You DO NOT see rookies come in, with awful lines and be successful. The rookies you see coming in being successful are on teams that have decent lines. Yes, that does include Joe Flacco and Matt Ryan.

[thebandit27]

Dude seriously, your argument is stupid as hell. You are not going to convince me or anyone else with a brain that a good QB can erase a bad O-line. You pick a team here and there that probably represents 3% of the teams in the NFL and think you made a good point when the other 97% of the teams in the NFL don't follow the same rule of thumb.

 

Bandit I think someone may have stolen your brain.

 

I have an idea, dog. Instead of flinging insults and generalities, try something innovative, like backing your argument up with a fact, statistic, supporting example, or anything relevant that you can point to that may somewhat represent a rationale. Your blanket statements are short-sighted and make you sound ignorrant.

 

Right, someone must have stolen my brain, because you refuse to acknowledge the FACTS. I have proven over and over again that the teams I mention (Pittsburgh, Tennesee, or the complete litany of Superbowl winning teams I referenced from earlier this decade--that's of course assuming you actually read the post, which is a risky assumption based on your complete lack of response to every single relevant point) actually represent a statistically significant portion of the league. I'm sorry that this bothers you, and that for some reason you have a problem with it, but it doesn't make it any less true.

 

Again, I know you don't like to hear it, but it's not "stupid as hell" to say that a good QB can erease a bad O-line, since a team with a good QB and a bad OL won the Superbowl last year. They also played in the Superbowl against a team with a good QB and a bad OL. If you don't understand that this actually happened, and happened a mere 9-1/2 months ago, then perhaps I'm not the one that is missing a brain...seriously.

 

Unlike your posts, which are based purely upon opinion, my responses to you all contain facts. Real facts. Undebatable facts. Facts that show, unequivically, that a good QB can make up for a bad offensive line. It happened in 2008. It's currently happeninng in 2009 (see teams like Green Bay, Pittsburgh, and Jacksonville, all of which rank in the bottom 1/3 of the league in pass protection, but rank in the top 10 in total offense).

 

Now, do you have anything other than your opinion to present as a point of debate, or are you content to let the uber-intelligent "you're stupid and have no brain" argument stand on it's own here?

[Guest dog14787]

I have an idea, dog. Instead of flinging insults and generalities, try something innovative, like backing your argument up with a fact, statistic, supporting example, or anything relevant that you can point to that may somewhat represent a rationale. Your blanket statements are short-sighted and make you sound ignorrant.

 

Right, someone must have stolen my brain, because you refuse to acknowledge the FACTS. I have proven over and over again that the teams I mention (Pittsburgh, Tennesee, or the complete litany of Superbowl winning teams I referenced from earlier this decade--that's of course assuming you actually read the post, which is a risky assumption based on your complete lack of response to every single relevant point) actually represent a statistically significant portion of the league. I'm sorry that this bothers you, and that for some reason you have a problem with it, but it doesn't make it any less true.

 

Again, I know you don't like to hear it, but it's not "stupid as hell" to say that a good QB can erease a bad O-line, since a team with a good QB and a bad OL won the Superbowl last year. They also played in the Superbowl against a team with a good QB and a bad OL. If you don't understand that this actually happened, and happened a mere 9-1/2 months ago, then perhaps I'm not the one that is missing a brain...seriously.

 

Unlike your posts, which are based purely upon opinion, my responses to you all contain facts. Real facts. Undebatable facts. Facts that show, unequivically, that a good QB can make up for a bad offensive line. It happened in 2008. It's currently happeninng in 2009 (see teams like Green Bay, Pittsburgh, and Jacksonville, all of which rank in the bottom 1/3 of the league in pass protection, but rank in the top 10 in total offense).

 

Now, do you have anything other than your opinion to present as a point of debate, or are you content to let the uber-intelligent "you're stupid and have no brain" argument stand on it's own here?

 

 

We went through this all before on another thread and you didn't convince me of anything then and you still don't now. There is always an exception to the rule and by bringing that exception to the rule to the table by way of argument bears the weight of percentages.

 

You have my apology for the insults, I realize some of you guys believe in this argument so we will all just have to respectfully disagree.

[thebandit27]

No matter who the QB is, they will not perform BETTER with a bad OL. There are definitely QB's in the league that CAN perform with a poor OL (Peyton Manning, Big Ben, Tom Brady, Drew Brees), but they cannot make the line play better.

 

Unless we are picking up a VET like one of those guys, the line needs to be addressed first. You DO NOT see rookies come in, with awful lines and be successful. The rookies you see coming in being successful are on teams that have decent lines. Yes, that does include Joe Flacco and Matt Ryan.

 

No disrespect dude, but if what you're saying is true, then how does an offensive line like New England's allow 49 sacks with Matt Cassel sandwiched between seasons allowing 21 sacks and (currently) 12 sacks with Tom Brady, without any discernable changes in personnel or coaching (aside from the fact that they've had to start a rookie 2nd round pick at LT after their pro bowl LT got injured)?

 

Also, regarding Ryan: Atlanta's offensive line allowed 47 sacks in 2007--the season before Ryan arrived (tied for 7th most in the league)--and the team ranked 26th in rushing. They addressed QB first, then traded back into the first round to draft a LT (the only O-lineman they selected that year--they also did not sign any free agent O-linemen). Obviously, they felt like the QB was the greater priority. And they were right. It's easier to fathom, in my opinion, that the QB made the greater difference in their offense performing significantly better in 2008 than the one offensive lineman they drafted (who started only 5 games his rookie year).

[timba]

I have an idea, dog. Instead of flinging insults and generalities, try something innovative, like backing your argument up with a fact, statistic, supporting example, or anything relevant that you can point to that may somewhat represent a rationale. Your blanket statements are short-sighted and make you sound ignorrant.

 

Right, someone must have stolen my brain, because you refuse to acknowledge the FACTS. I have proven over and over again that the teams I mention (Pittsburgh, Tennesee, or the complete litany of Superbowl winning teams I referenced from earlier this decade--that's of course assuming you actually read the post, which is a risky assumption based on your complete lack of response to every single relevant point) actually represent a statistically significant portion of the league. I'm sorry that this bothers you, and that for some reason you have a problem with it, but it doesn't make it any less true.

 

Again, I know you don't like to hear it, but it's not "stupid as hell" to say that a good QB can erease a bad O-line, since a team with a good QB and a bad OL won the Superbowl last year. They also played in the Superbowl against a team with a good QB and a bad OL. If you don't understand that this actually happened, and happened a mere 9-1/2 months ago, then perhaps I'm not the one that is missing a brain...seriously.

 

Unlike your posts, which are based purely upon opinion, my responses to you all contain facts. Real facts. Undebatable facts. Facts that show, unequivically, that a good QB can make up for a bad offensive line. It happened in 2008. It's currently happeninng in 2009 (see teams like Green Bay, Pittsburgh, and Jacksonville, all of which rank in the bottom 1/3 of the league in pass protection, but rank in the top 10 in total offense).

 

Now, do you have anything other than your opinion to present as a point of debate, or are you content to let the uber-intelligent "you're stupid and have no brain" argument stand on it's own here?

 

For every QB that can perform without a decent o-line, there are much more that can't. We can look at the past several Bills QB's for that example. A good O-Line can also get you to the big show. Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Rex Grossman heck Neil O'Donnell even got there. None of them are great QB's by any means in fact I would classify them as serviceable.

[timba]

No disrespect dude, but if what you're saying is true, then how does an offensive line like New England's allow 49 sacks with Matt Cassel sandwiched between seasons allowing 21 sacks and (currently) 12 sacks with Tom Brady, without any discernable changes in personnel or coaching (aside from the fact that they've had to start a rookie 2nd round pick at LT after their pro bowl LT got injured)?

 

Also, regarding Ryan: Atlanta's offensive line allowed 47 sacks in 2007--the season before Ryan arrived (tied for 7th most in the league)--and the team ranked 26th in rushing. They addressed QB first, then traded back into the first round to draft a LT (the only O-lineman they selected that year--they also did not sign any free agent O-linemen). Obviously, they felt like the QB was the greater priority. And they were right. It's easier to fathom, in my opinion, that the QB made the greater difference in their offense performing significantly better in 2008 than the one offensive lineman they drafted (who started only 5 games his rookie year).

 

You're talking about going from Tom Brady to Matt Cassel. There is definitely a difference in talent there. Sacks are a result of everybody in the offense, not just the line. It shouldn't be the only stat examined when evaluating how effective a line is. The real question is would a better line make Brady better?

 

In regards to Matt Ryan, yes he was picked first, but they didn't bring him in without also getting their line up to snuff (by drafting a LT) and also bringing in Michael Turner.

[FreakPop]

We went through this all before on another thread and you didn't convince me of anything then and you still don't now. There is always an exception to the rule and by bringing that exception to the rule to the table by way of argument bears the weight of percentages.

 

You have my apology for the insults, I realize some of you guys believe in this argument so we will all just have to respectfully disagree.

 

 

Reading through this thread leads me to believe that dog14787 has got to be the most stubborn, irrational, narrow minded person posting on these boards. Most of your views are polar opposites of anyone elses. Hmm.. done on purpose? I think so, just so you can argue.

 

How many more factual proofs does bandit have to give you? I really think you just like to argue, period. I think you are one of those people who gets a rise out of being a total pain in the arse. You must live one pathetic life!

[Guest dog14787]

Reading through this thread leads me to believe that dog14787 has got to be the most stubborn, irrational, narrow minded person posting on these boards. Most of your views are polar opposites of anyone elses. Hmm.. done on purpose? I think so, just so you can argue.

 

How many more factual proofs does bandit have to give you? I really think you just like to argue, period. I think you are one of those people who gets a rise out of being a total pain in the arse. You must live one pathetic life!

 

Do you ever have anything useful to add to a thread or do you just bounce around insulting folks.

 

I've told you before I could care less what you think about me and I'm sure other folks feel the same way.

 

Put me on ignore, do what you have to do, but stop wasting folks time starting something up over nothing.

 

Do I form my own opinion, your damn right I do, so get over it.

[Thurman#1]

I can't believe how many times I've read posts stating that Manning or Brady couldn't get it done behind this o-line. I firmly believe that is inherently false. IMO, if you put Manning on the Bills, we are in contention for the playoffs still (provided DJ wasn't the coach). I'd be willing to bet he even puts up similar to better numbers here.

 

I'm not discounting the problems this o-line has. The tackles are terrible and the unit is undisciplined. Top notch QBs can overcome these problems with superior skill sets, though. The type of skills our QBs most cetainly don't have. The best QBs in this league have incredible time clocks in their heads and they can feel pressure coming. Some of the best QBs in this league have dealt with lines as bad as ours and made it work. I see Rothlisburger do it all the time.

 

My point is yes the line sucks but a better than average QB could have made it work this year.

 

Tom Brady was sacked 21 times in 2007.

Matt Cassel was sacked 47 times in 2008.

Tom Brady has been sacked 12 times so far this year.

 

Our QBs are more like Cassel.

 

 

 

Serious pressure resets those clocks in the heads. I'm sure you remember how pathetic Brady looked in that Super Bowl with the Giants when somebody finally got past their o-line consistently.

 

Even good QBs do badly with bad OLs.

 

Of course it is true that good QBs make offensive lines look better.

 

But basically, our line legitimately sucks, and would negatively affect any QB.

[Thurman#1]

You and others have made our offensive line situation the number one reason our offense is awful. This simply is not the case. After reading over and over that all QBs would fail behind this line, I thought I'd throw my two cents in. The number one problem this season has been coaching and QB play.

 

The Bills have identified this and have made the proper moves, finally. This team can make plays on offense despite the line troubles but it needs to be upgraded for sure.

 

 

 

QBs who are often hit, especially from the blindside which often happens with this particular o-line, start getting happy feet. They start dancing and jigging. They start throwing the ball before they have to. Their interior clocks are reset with much less time, so that even when they have plenty of time left, they think they don't and they throw early and check down a lot more.

 

All of this describes Trent to a T. Trent hasn't just failed to develop. He has actually regressed, he's gotten worse at many aspects of the game, and an awful lot of it is just consistent shell-shock. The same thing happens to any good QB who takes a huge amount of punishment over a long period of time.

 

QBs also get injured more often with bad OLs, and they become aware of it and try to avoid it and play worse. The whole thing just creates a huge negative feedback loop, even with good QBs.

[Adam]

He never said they'd be as good.

 

But no doubt in my mind, if Manning was our quarterback we'd be 10-6, easy.

Can Peyton Manning play the DL as well too, since Marcus Stroud can't stop the run all by himself....despite the ramblings on this board to the contrary when we signed him.

[Guest dog14787]

QBs who are often hit, especially from the blindside which often happens with this particular o-line, start getting happy feet. They start dancing and jigging. They start throwing the ball before they have to. Their interior clocks are reset with much less time, so that even when they have plenty of time left, they think they don't and they throw early and check down a lot more.

 

All of this describes Trent to a T. Trent hasn't just failed to develop. He has actually regressed, he's gotten worse at many aspects of the game, and an awful lot of it is just consistent shell-shock. The same thing happens to any good QB who takes a huge amount of punishment over a long period of time.

 

QBs also get injured more often with bad OLs, and they become aware of it and try to avoid it and play worse. The whole thing just creates a huge negative feedback loop, even with good QBs.

 

Can we frame this post and hang it on the wall here at TSW for everyone to see.

[FreakPop]

Do you ever have anything useful to add to a thread or do you just bounce around insulting folks.

 

I've told you before I could care less what you think about me and I'm sure other folks feel the same way.

 

Put me on ignore, do what you have to do, but stop wasting folks time starting something up over nothing.

 

Do I form my own opinion, your damn right I do, so get over it.

 

Nothing to get over, I just hate ignorant argumentative people. Your "opinions" are geared towards starting arguments, talk about wasting peoples time!

[Guest dog14787]

Nothing to get over, I just hate ignorant argumentative people. Your "opinions" are geared towards starting arguments, talk about wasting peoples time!

 

Yet you like to argue, go figure