San-O Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 FYI: I hadn't seem this before, so excuse me if already posted. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?arc...e&Submit=Go The O-line was actually very good running the ball, and brutal protecting the passer, which we all knew already. The "EXP" column is experience. Look at the ranking in average yards / carry and notice the teams ahead of Bills with like 500 + combined start. Also, did the Bills sack total from 2008 go down with the trade of Peters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjg1993 Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 cool beans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpl6876 Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 I don't care how you spin it. Did you watch the games last year? The OL wasn't very good and we are more likely to see more of the same. I ain't drinking anymore of that "kool aid." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
judman Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 I got two words for you... Browns game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsPhan Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 FYI: I hadn't seem this before, so excuse me if already posted. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?arc...e&Submit=Go The O-line was actually very good running the ball, and brutal protecting the passer, which we all knew already. The "EXP" column is experience. Look at the ranking in average yards / carry and notice the teams ahead of Bills with like 500 + combined start. Also, did the Bills sack total from 2008 go down with the trade of Peters? So the Bills O-Line was ranked number 28 out of 32 teams, and so many posters on this board get so upset and sensitive when we realists mock out the OL, or mention crazy negative things like wondering how this OL will be able to block for Spiller or pass block for the mystery starting QB regardless of wonderful Gailey's new offense will be. 28th out of 32 teams last year, and yet Buddy Nix still did not feel like he needed to address that horrible OL with a good free agent or first or second round draft choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 FYI: I hadn't seem this before, so excuse me if already posted. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?arc...e&Submit=Go The O-line was actually very good running the ball, and brutal protecting the passer, which we all knew already. The "EXP" column is experience. Look at the ranking in average yards / carry and notice the teams ahead of Bills with like 500 + combined start. Also, did the Bills sack total from 2008 go down with the trade of Peters? Nice chart of the run distributions. I'm always a bit leery of OL stats, though. Substitutions, injuries, game situations etc. I prefer a RB that hits the hole quickly, even if he isn't particularly notable in the open field. WRs that are decent if not spectacular in run blocking. IMO, football is more strictly a team game than other major sports. Not all positions are equally covered by statistics. Linemen are important mainly in a collective sense - I think that a line is defined by its weakest points than by one or more exceptional players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 Nice chart of the run distributions. I'm always a bit leery of OL stats, though. Substitutions, injuries, game situations etc. I prefer a RB that hits the hole quickly, even if he isn't particularly notable in the open field. WRs that are decent if not spectacular in run blocking. IMO, football is more strictly a team game than other major sports. Not all positions are equally covered by statistics. Linemen are important mainly in a collective sense - I think that a line is defined by its weakest points than by one or more exceptional players. I agree in the short term from a coaching perspective I'd rather have 5 solid guys instead of 2 great players, 1 solid guy, and 2 weak sisters- but from the long term GM perspective I'd like the later because it should be easier to replace the two weak sisters with solid guys than to replace two solid guy with great players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Bill Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 The "EXP" column is experience. Look at the ranking in average yards / carry and notice the teams ahead of Billswith like 500 + combined start. The EXP column is amazing. Not quite sure what impressions you can draw from the data, but only one team had less than double the EXP and most of the better teams in the league had 4-5 times the EXP. No one could be happy about last year's O-line performance, but this chart should give us hope for a better year -- couldn't be worse, I 'spose!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 (edited) I agree in the short term from a coaching perspective I'd rather have 5 solid guys instead of 2 great players, 1 solid guy, and 2 weak sisters- but from the long term GM perspective I'd like the later because it should be easier to replace the two weak sisters with solid guys than to replace two solid guy with great players. Yep, and contract cost enters in. It would be harder, I think, to get rid of solid, reasonably priced players when there are other positions to pay, than to just get rid of the "weak sisters". Assuming of course, you aren't paying those weak sisters a bundle. Always a compromise... Edited July 9, 2010 by stuckincincy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 FYI: I hadn't seem this before, so excuse me if already posted. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?arc...e&Submit=Go The O-line was actually very good running the ball, and brutal protecting the passer, which we all knew already. The "EXP" column is experience. Look at the ranking in average yards / carry and notice the teams ahead of Bills with like 500 + combined start. Also, did the Bills sack total from 2008 go down with the trade of Peters? The difference between Buffalo's experience and the mean in the NFL (about 318) is staggering, but I think it's safe to say that most of us already knew that (not picking on you, this is a great tool you've presented). Here's what I find interesting... - When you sort the teams by experience, you'll find that 3 of the bottom 5 teams had winning records. 4 of the bottom 10 teams made the playoffs (SD, Cin, Phi, NO) and another 2 had winning records (Hou, Mia). The distribution is almost identical for the top teams, as 2 of the top 5 made the playoffs (3 had winning records), as did 5 of the top 10 (Dal, NYJ, NE, GB, Ind). - 7 of the top 10 teams in yards/carry ranked below the mean experience (318) of the league's OLs, while only 5 of the bottom 10 teams in yards/carry did so. - 7 of the bottom 10 teams in sacks allowed ranked below the mean experience of the league's OLs, while 6 of the top 10 teams in this category ranked below it as well. - 6 of the bottom 10 teams in QB hits allowed ranked below 318, while 6 of the top 10 teams did as well. I'm not sure if there's enough here to make a blanket conclusion, but it looks to me like it all comes back to ability (unless, of course, you're talking about a team like Buffalo--that had less than 1/3 of the mean experience around the league)...but again, that's probably something that most of us already knew. Just my 1 cent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Bill Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 I guess you can assume that the Bill's lack of O-line EXP does show they played a huge number of "second-class" (replacement level) players. It would be unlikely to have that many young players with reliable talent, skill, and decision-making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted July 9, 2010 Author Share Posted July 9, 2010 The difference between Buffalo's experience and the mean in the NFL (about 318) is staggering, but I think it's safe to say that most of us already knew that (not picking on you, this is a great tool you've presented). Here's what I find interesting... - When you sort the teams by experience, you'll find that 3 of the bottom 5 teams had winning records. 4 of the bottom 10 teams made the playoffs (SD, Cin, Phi, NO) and another 2 had winning records (Hou, Mia). The distribution is almost identical for the top teams, as 2 of the top 5 made the playoffs (3 had winning records), as did 5 of the top 10 (Dal, NYJ, NE, GB, Ind). - 7 of the top 10 teams in yards/carry ranked below the mean experience (318) of the league's OLs, while only 5 of the bottom 10 teams in yards/carry did so. - 7 of the bottom 10 teams in sacks allowed ranked below the mean experience of the league's OLs, while 6 of the top 10 teams in this category ranked below it as well. - 6 of the bottom 10 teams in QB hits allowed ranked below 318, while 6 of the top 10 teams did as well. I'm not sure if there's enough here to make a blanket conclusion, but it looks to me like it all comes back to ability (unless, of course, you're talking about a team like Buffalo--that had less than 1/3 of the mean experience around the league)...but again, that's probably something that most of us already knew. Just my 1 cent. Great points. I did notice that SD has a very young line and also was very good. I guess that's what a good G.M./Front Office can do for you. I really think it's just to early to tell with these guys, however I would have been up for drafting an O-lineman RT/LT also if they had someone they liked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted July 9, 2010 Author Share Posted July 9, 2010 I guess you can assume that the Bill's lack of O-line EXP does show they played a huge number of "second-class" (replacement level) players. It would be unlikely to have that many young players with reliable talent, skill, and decision-making. Another great point. I would like to see the O-line all play a complete season together and see where they are at. Also, 2 complete rookies and a LT who had never played a snap in the NFL. I wonder if their run blocking will improve also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 The experience contrast is staggering. Wonder what the average devleopment cycle is for an OL at the NFL level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 The experience contrast is staggering. Wonder what the average devleopment cycle is for an OL at the NFL level. Well, they canned Walker and Dockery, started rookies Wood and Levitre (sad to have to do that), and had a rash of OL injuries (that they were mostly free from for several seasons). A mere anomaly, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 The difference between Buffalo's experience and the mean in the NFL (about 318) is staggering, but I think it's safe to say that most of us already knew that (not picking on you, this is a great tool you've presented). Here's what I find interesting... - When you sort the teams by experience, you'll find that 3 of the bottom 5 teams had winning records. 4 of the bottom 10 teams made the playoffs (SD, Cin, Phi, NO) and another 2 had winning records (Hou, Mia). The distribution is almost identical for the top teams, as 2 of the top 5 made the playoffs (3 had winning records), as did 5 of the top 10 (Dal, NYJ, NE, GB, Ind). - 7 of the top 10 teams in yards/carry ranked below the mean experience (318) of the league's OLs, while only 5 of the bottom 10 teams in yards/carry did so. - 7 of the bottom 10 teams in sacks allowed ranked below the mean experience of the league's OLs, while 6 of the top 10 teams in this category ranked below it as well. - 6 of the bottom 10 teams in QB hits allowed ranked below 318, while 6 of the top 10 teams did as well. I'm not sure if there's enough here to make a blanket conclusion, but it looks to me like it all comes back to ability (unless, of course, you're talking about a team like Buffalo--that had less than 1/3 of the mean experience around the league)...but again, that's probably something that most of us already knew. Just my 1 cent. Rush Right PWR is an interesting one (which I guess means you can convert on the strong side when you have to) 8 of top 10 teams were in the playoffs. BAL 1 NO 2 cin 3 GB 6 NYJ 7 SD 8 INDY 9 Phil 10 Min 12 NE 14 Ariz 17 DAl 30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dundy249 Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 So the Bills O-Line was ranked number 28 out of 32 teams, and so many posters on this board get so upset and sensitive when we realists mock out the OL, or mention crazy negative things like wondering how this OL will be able to block for Spiller or pass block for the mystery starting QB regardless of wonderful Gailey's new offense will be. 28th out of 32 teams last year, and yet Buddy Nix still did not feel like he needed to address that horrible OL with a good free agent or first or second round draft choice. who said they were ranked 28th? that is just the column they had sorted they were ranked 16th in total rards rushing 8th in YPC 28th in sacks all this with 91 career starts half of the next closest team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsPhan Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 who said they were ranked 28th? that is just the column they had sorted they were ranked 16th in total rards rushing 8th in YPC 28th in sacks all this with 91 career starts half of the next closest team Um... the "column they had sorted", whatever that means, has a number 28 next to it, for the Buffalo Bills. If you go up to the very top of the page, and read the heading above all those numbers, it says: RK Now, and I'm just spit balling here, but I think RK stands for the word....RANK. Looking one line down, there is the number 1. Indianapolis Colts. Makes sense to me that Peyton Mannings' OL would be ranked number one, don't you think? So nice job of picking out the postive's within the Bills' number 28 overall ranking, but they are still 28 out of 32 teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted July 9, 2010 Author Share Posted July 9, 2010 Um... the "column they had sorted", whatever that means, has a number 28 next to it, for the Buffalo Bills. If you go up to the very top of the page, and read the heading above all those numbers, it says: RK Now, and I'm just spit balling here, but I think RK stands for the word....RANK. Looking one line down, there is the number 1. Indianapolis Colts. Makes sense to me that Peyton Mannings' OL would be ranked number one, don't you think? So nice job of picking out the postive's within the Bills' number 28 overall ranking, but they are still 28 out of 32 teams. By default they are ranked by sacks allowed I believe. 28. They were 31st in "QB Hits". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts