Controlling the LOS

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Nice job Fear.

 

Yep

[K-9]

Chandler is a horrible blocker. He's a detriment to the running game that you strongly desire the Bills to have.

 

Lee Smith is a horrible receiver. When he's in the game the other team knows that the Bills are probably gonna try to run the ball.

 

Chandler is no prince when he's kept in for max protect, either. Just an atrocious blocker of any kind.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Buffalo Barbarian]

here is what Buffalo should look to do, sign these two free agents... Zack Strief RT and LG Matt Slauson, both are massive upgrades at their positions and wouldn't empty out the bank. Then Buffalo can address upgrades at LB and TE.

 

those would be nice pickups, I like my draft too.

[RuntheDamnBall]

As I posted upthread, it's not a debate about style versus substance as far as I'm concerned although I understand how that might come into play in some people's opinions.

 

If we set aside the style versus substance discussion, it becomes a discussion about value and impact.

 

Thus the Gronk vs Mankins question.

 

Here's another question.

 

Would you be better off with 5 All Pro O-linemen and terrible QB or an All Pro QB and 5 terrible O-linemen?

 

Ultimately this is really a philosophical question with no right answer which is why I like the Mankins vs Gronk on the Bills question better.

 

It really has to be judged on a team-by-team basis.

 

Speaking to this discussion in general terms becomes too vague.

I think the likelihood that you have 5 terrible O-Linemen is pretty low in the NFL. You'd have to have a complete failure of talent evaluation to have no capable performers on the line. The greater likelihood, if they are all playing poorly as a unit, is that they are being poorly coached as a unit.

 

So, to answer your question - you take the QB every time, and then you start to figure out which pieces need to go and which ones need to stay, right away. This includes evaluating the OL coach, and certainly making some in-season roster moves.

 

One thing I am happy about with this Bills' regime is that they are not content with decent performance and will certainly not let bums ride out the season. They keep kicking the tires on other guys, PS guys, and swapping different depth players in and out to see where they can improve. Luckily health has meant that LG has been the only position that one could consistently characterize as "upgradable."

 

If I had to run down the positions in order of "instability," I'd say it's

 

1) LG / LeGursky (yes, I meant to do that)

2) RT / Pears (Hairston should have been able to challenge him)

3) RG / Urbik (capable, not All Pro caliber, would be awesome if he could become depth at the position)

4) (tie) Glenn/Wood -- I think these are the two lynchpins of the line. If a clear upgrade came at LT, you'd take it, but they are solid at the position. I don't think we've seen Wood's ceiling yet, but this is (knock on...) the first full healthy season we've seen from the guy. It would be nice if he and Manuel as a battery can really begin to dictate what happens on offense as they gain more experience together.

 

PS - a killer TE would make everyone look better. He who cannot be covered can often save the day.

[johnwalter]

If we went with an elite OT prospect like Matthews could we just kick Pears to LG under the assumption that an average RT can become an above average LG?

[thewildrabbit]

First off, all this talk of finding a great TE like Gronk or Jimmy Graham is just that, talk! Because of the mere fact that the Bills haven't even tried looking for a TE like that! In order to find a top talent in a TE they would need to start drafting them. Which, like I showed earlier, they have only drafted one TE in the first three rounds only once in 13 years. I just don't get how some of you are off pipe dreaming about a top TE before the team even builds ample protection of the QB or a top run game.

 

Second, how on earth do you compare a competent LG to a TE? Because you can't win many games with sub par players on that O line. If nothing else in my earlier posts I've proven that the lack of talent on that line equals losing seasons.

 

 

Example: In 2004 despite having a #1 overall pick at QB in Drew Bledsoe. The Bills had a decent run game & defense and yet couldn't get to the playoffs because they couldn't adequately protect the QB all season.

 

That year the Buffalo Bills had the #7 offense in points scored along with the #8 defense in points allowed / #2 in yards allowed, and yet only went 9-7 because when the chips were down in the game they simply couldn't adequately protect the QB. Opposing teams knew that if they got to Bledsoe early, then he would see phantom sackers, and hurry his throws. However, If given ample time to throw he would rip opposing teams defenses a new one.

 

What gets me is the current coaching staff at that time knew of Drew Bledsoe's deficiencies against a strong pass rush, and wanted him to get the ball out quicker. So, they wanted a guy who had been in the league for 12 years to suddenly change his ways rather then beefing up the line to protect him. How'd that work out?

 

 

If Chan Gailey proved anything during his time with the Bills, its that you can't win games by being a one dimensional pass or run team. Under Gailey the Bills could line up in 4-5 WR sets with only one decent WR and put up decent numbers in the short passing game but had great difficulty throwing deep. The run game would make big plays all over but couldn't make a 3rd and short by running if the game depended on it. Gailey never won more then 6 games while with Buffalo. Because the Bills had no deep passing game, no short yardage run game. Because he couldn't get a 1st down on 3rd and short, or punch the ball into the end zone by running it. Finesse along with smoke and mirrors only go so far. Basically, BECAUSE HE COULDN'T CONTROL THE LoS!!

 

You need to control the line of scrimmage in both facets of the game, both running and passing to be successful. You need to be able to make a first down and short by both running and passing, score on the goal line by both running and passing.

 

Howsabout letting the Bills find a better LG, and perhaps simply more depth for that line. Then find better players at RT & RG before they start drafting TE's looking for that elusive needle.

[stony]

First off, all this talk of finding a great TE like Gronk or Jimmy Graham is just that, talk! Because of the mere fact that the Bills haven't even tried looking for a TE like that! In order to find a top talent in a TE they would need to start drafting them. Which, like I showed earlier, they have only drafted one TE in the first three rounds only once in 13 years. I just don't get how some of you are off pipe dreaming about a top TE before the team even builds ample protection of the QB or a top run game.

 

Second, how on earth do you compare a competent LG to a TE? Because you can't win many games with sub par players on that O line. If nothing else in my earlier posts I've proven that the lack of talent on that line equals losing seasons.

 

 

Example: In 2004 despite having a #1 overall pick at QB in Drew Bledsoe. The Bills had a decent run game & defense and yet couldn't get to the playoffs because they couldn't adequately protect the QB all season.

 

That year the Buffalo Bills had the #7 offense in points scored along with the #8 defense in points allowed / #2 in yards allowed, and yet only went 9-7 because when the chips were down in the game they simply couldn't adequately protect the QB. Opposing teams knew that if they got to Bledsoe early, then he would see phantom sackers, and hurry his throws. However, If given ample time to throw he would rip opposing teams defenses a new one.

 

What gets me is the current coaching staff at that time knew of Drew Bledsoe's deficiencies against a strong pass rush, and wanted him to get the ball out quicker. So, they wanted a guy who had been in the league for 12 years to suddenly change his ways rather then beefing up the line to protect him. How'd that work out?

 

 

If Chan Gailey proved anything during his time with the Bills, its that you can't win games by being a one dimensional pass or run team. Under Gailey the Bills could line up in 4-5 WR sets with only one decent WR and put up decent numbers in the short passing game but had great difficulty throwing deep. The run game would make big plays all over but couldn't make a 3rd and short by running if the game depended on it. Gailey never won more then 6 games while with Buffalo. Because the Bills had no deep passing game, no short yardage run game. Because he couldn't get a 1st down on 3rd and short, or punch the ball into the end zone by running it. Finesse along with smoke and mirrors only go so far. Basically, BECAUSE HE COULDN'T CONTROL THE LoS!!

 

You need to control the line of scrimmage in both facets of the game, both running and passing to be successful. You need to be able to make a first down and short by both running and passing, score on the goal line by both running and passing.

 

Howsabout letting the Bills find a better LG, and perhaps simply more depth for that line. Then find better players at RT & RG before they start drafting TE's looking for that elusive needle.

 

Yes, the Bills have been horrible for a long time and the line has been questionable for many years during the streak of ineptitude, but do you really think (knowing what we know now) that with a top five line during some of those years the Bill's are a playoff team?

 

And yes, I think think our line is adequate enough to win. And yes, I think we need an upgrade at LG stat, and a RT in the draft wouldn't be a bad idea. My point is, these are not mutually exclusive.

[thebandit27]

The crusade continues...

 

When LG and RT become the thing holding this team back, they'll be a Superbowl contender.

 

Can they upgrade there? Yes. Do they need to do so more than at TE, LB, or FS (assuming Byrd leaves)? Not even close.

 

And anyone that thinks "great OL = success" needs to watch a Jets or Texans game.

[thewildrabbit]

Yes, the Bills have been horrible for a long time and the line has been questionable for many years during the streak of ineptitude, but do you really think (knowing what we know now) that with a top five line during some of those years the Bill's are a playoff team?

 

And yes, I think think our line is adequate enough to win. And yes, I think we need an upgrade at LG stat, and a RT in the draft wouldn't be a bad idea. My point is, these are not mutually exclusive.

I most certainly think that the 9-7 Bills are in the playoffs in 2004 with a better O line, no question about it in my mind. The Bills would have made the playoffs if they had beaten the Steelers in the final game of the season that year.

 

Then throughout the 7-9 Jauron years 2006-2009 that line had a decent LT in Jason Peters but not much else. Most notably lacking a decent center for most of that time. Melvin Fowler, Duke Preston, Geoff Hangartner. The mere fact that they had 3 different players at center over those years shows they lacked any kind of continuity. Eric Wood took over the center position during 2010.

 

Besides the LT or the QB's blindside tackle, the most important position on that line is the center who usually calls the protections, and sets for the line.

 

Our OL is more than adequate to win the big one.

Stating that the line is adequate to win and yet still could use upgrades...why would they even bother upgrading if they can win the big one with the current line? Kinda of lame to contradict yourself in your own posts, don't you think?

[thebandit27]

 

I most certainly think that the 9-7 Bills are in the playoffs in 2004 with a better O line, no question about it in my mind. The Bills would have made the playoffs if they had beaten the Steelers in the final game of the season that year.

 

Then throughout the 7-9 Jauron years 2006-2009 that line had a decent LT in Jason Peters but not much else. Most notably lacking a decent center for most of that time. Melvin Fowler, Duke Preston, Geoff Hangartner. The mere fact that they had 3 different players at center over those years shows they lacked any kind of continuity. Eric Wood took over the center position during 2010.

 

Besides the LT or the QB's blindside tackle, the most important position on that line is the center who usually calls the protections, and sets for the line.

 

 

Stating that the line is adequate to win and yet still could use upgrades...why would they even bother upgrading if they can win the big one with the current line? Kinda of lame to contradict yourself in your own posts, don't you think?

 

What's lame is mischaractetizing someone else's point. If your last statement holds water, then no Superbowl contender should ever upgrade at any position, since--by virtue of being a contender--all positions are adequate to win.

 

Now, if you weren't attempting to misconstrue the point, you'd realize that the message wa clear: every team should always be looking to upgrade at every position at which they aren't 100% satisfied. One of those areas is the OL, but it's by no means the most crucial or the most inadequate.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Then throughout the 7-9 Jauron years 2006-2009 that line had a decent LT in Jason Peters but not much else. Most notably lacking a decent center for most of that time. Melvin Fowler, Duke Preston, Geoff Hangartner. The mere fact that they had 3 different players at center over those years shows they lacked any kind of continuity. Eric Wood took over the center position during 2010.

OH THE HUMANITY.

 

 

Now, if you weren't attempting to misconstrue the point, you'd realize that the message wa clear: every team should always be looking to upgrade at every position at which they aren't 100% satisfied. One of those areas is the OL, but it's by no means the most crucial or the most inadequate.

And... scene

[Big Turk]

 

 

Chandler is a horrible blocker. He's a detriment to the running game that you strongly desire the Bills to have.

 

Lee Smith is a horrible receiver. When he's in the game the other team knows that the Bills are probably gonna try to run the ball.

 

You mean Smith tripping over the five yard line when he was wide open for a TD isn't what Gonzalez or Gates would have done?? Lmao

[Big Turk]

 

 

Easy question. The 5 quality linemen make the qb look better than he is and that applies to backs as well. With 5 terrible linemen you have no all pro QB. What you have is a series of terrified QBs being carted off the field.

 

Or Aaron Rodgers and Ben Roethlesberger who won Super Bowls behind those horrible lines while being near the top of the league in sacks...

Edited November 30, 2013 by matter2003

[RuntheDamnBall]

You mean Smith tripping over the five yard line when he was wide open for a TD isn't what Gonzalez or Gates would have done?? Lmao

Hey c'mon, the five yard line is just sticking out there like that. Could happen to anybody.

[Big Turk]

Not really nonsense when looking at our team. Where do you see a QB the caliber of Rodgers on our roster?

 

Doesn't matter how good you make the line, you are still struggling to win more than 8 or 9 games without a very good QB unless you can put all pros and pro bowlers at virtually every other position than QB like the Ravens did...

 

The way the rules have been changed to favor the offense, and specifically the passing game where receivers can't be held, touched or bumped after five yards, or at least much less than in the past, dictate that the most success will come from being able to exploit the advantage you are being given by the NFL.

 

Running backs and offensive lines have no such advantage built in which is why you can longer just control the LOS and think you are going to win...before the rule changes favoring the passing game came into play, yes, that absolutely was a viable strategy, now that will at best get you a wildcard berth and allow you to get destroyed by one of the teams with elite QB play in the playoffs, see Vikings, Minnesota with Petersen last year

Edited November 30, 2013 by matter2003

[Cheddar's Dad]

And anyone that thinks "great OL = success" needs to watch a Jets or Texans game.

 

Bandit; you think the Jets have a great OL???? Are you unaware of the problems the Jets have had at LG and the fact that Mangold's play at center has really dropped off this year?? Is there a pro-bowler on that Texan's line??? If you want to make a point you need better examples. Could it be that you could not find better examples because all teams with good to great O-lines have winning records???

 

BTW, watched Texas Tech and Amaro the other night. You described him as an adequate in line blocker. All that I saw from him is lining up in the slot and running to a spot where he could stand between a defender and a runner. That, my friend, is not blocking as defined by Gronk.

[Rockinon]

Chandler is a horrible blocker. He's a detriment to the running game that you strongly desire the Bills to have.

 

Lee Smith is a horrible receiver. When he's in the game the other team knows that the Bills are probably gonna try to run the ball.

Absolutely correct. That's why a TE who can block and catch is so important.

[Cheddar's Dad]

Absolutely correct. That's why a TE who can block and catch is so important.

 

Maybe you can identify one for us or, better yet, direct us to the Gronk store?

[Rockinon]

What's lame is mischaractetizing someone else's point. If your last statement holds water, then no Superbowl contender should ever upgrade at any position, since--by virtue of being a contender--all positions are adequate to win.

 

Now, if you weren't attempting to misconstrue the point, you'd realize that the message wa clear: every team should always be looking to upgrade at every position at which they aren't 100% satisfied. One of those areas is the OL, but it's by no means the most crucial or the most inadequate.

I agree with this. A lot of it just depends on how the chips fall too. During a draft for instance, we look at all of the positions that we would like an upgrade at and then decide which player we think would make the biggest impact. That position may not be the one we consider our weakest link. Just that the draftee is who we think will make the biggest impact. Sometimes you can't hit on the weakest link. Sometimes the draft position prevents getting value at the spot we most want to upgrade.

 

Maybe you can identify one for us or, better yet, direct us to the Gronk store?

There ain't no Gronk store. Have you read this thread? Or did you just read my last comment and assume you know where I was going with this? I would much rather upgrade the OL before getting a tight end. Read the whole thread. Some pretty good conversation here. Edited November 30, 2013 by Rockinon

[Big Turk]

I agree with this. A lot of it just depends on how the chips fall too. During a draft for instance, we look at all of the positions that we would like an upgrade at and then decide which player we think would make the biggest impact. That position may not be the one we consider our weakest link. Just that the draftee is who we think will make the biggest impact. Sometimes you can't hit on the weakest link. Sometimes the draft position prevents getting value at the spot we most want to upgrade.

 

Right, I think if you have a few guys graded around the same, and one is a position of need, you take him, otherwise you take the guy you think will make the biggest impact regardless of position