Cheddar's Dad Posted December 5, 2013 Author Share Posted December 5, 2013 The Bills rushed for 195 yards and for the second time this year, allowed zero sacks in a game in which they lost. Yet again, while they could improve, the O-line is far down the list of factors which prevent the Bills from winning. As said before, the Bills need to upgrade the offensive skill position weapons and having veteran receivers fumble away the game on two consecutive possessions backs up "The Gronk" argument eloquently. Tight ends like Chandler who can't block can't be fumbling the ball to the other team 4 times in 122 touches. In fact, tight ends and fullbacks aren't supposed to fumble the ball at all. If the Bills spend their mid first round pick on a guard, they're even more inept of an organization than any of us thought they were. Ok. Lets get a Gronk. Where's the Gronk store?? Gronk is the type of player that may come along once every 20 years. This year there's likely 90 TEs in the league but only 1 Gronk. You sound like you're quite young. Maybe if Buffalo uses all seven picks on TEs for the next 20 years the team might come up with the next Gronk. You may be around to see it. I likely will not be and that will be a good thing because I won't have to read your "we need a Gronk" rants year after year for the next 20. Meanwhile, there will be astute GM that build solid O-lines and win SBs during the next 20 years while Buffalo continues to draft for Gronk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) Ok. Lets get a Gronk. Where's the Gronk store?? Gronk is the type of player that may come along once every 20 years. This year there's likely 90 TEs in the league but only 1 Gronk. You sound like you're quite young. Maybe if Buffalo uses all seven picks on TEs for the next 20 years the team might come up with the next Gronk. You may be around to see it. I likely will not be and that will be a good thing because I won't have to read your "we need a Gronk" rants year after year for the next 20. Meanwhile, there will be astute GM that build solid O-lines and win SBs during the next 20 years while Buffalo continues to draft for Gronk. The Bills just signed a FA TE in Tony Moeaki which could turn out to be a great pickup. Just what this team needs for a pass catching TE to replace Chandler. That is, if he can stay healthy. Any AFC team who watched that Seattle, Saints Monday night game will need to remember exactly what they will have to bring to the game in order to win a super bowl. Talk* about controlling the line of scrimmage, I look at both the Seattle & San Fran O lines with envious eyes, and can only hope to see a line as good in Buffalo someday. Edited December 5, 2013 by FeartheLosing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) The Bills just signed a FA TE in Tony Moeaki which could turn out to be a great pickup. Just what this team needs for a pass catching TE to replace Chandler. That is, if he can stay healthy. Any AFC team who watched that Seattle, Saints Monday night game will need to remember exactly what they will have to bring to the game in order to win a super bowl. Take about controlling the line of scrimmage, I look at both the Seattle & San Fran O lines with envious eyes, and can only hope to see a line as good in Buffalo someday. Yes, if only we could rush for 0.2 YPC more than we are now, allow 2 fewer sacks and 10 fewer QB hits over a 12-game season (which would match precisely the performance of the Seattle OL you're pining for), that would make all the difference. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?seasonType=REG&offensiveStatisticCategory=OFFENSIVE_LINE&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=RUSHING_TOTAL_AVERAGE_YDS&tabSeq=2&season=2013&role=TM&Submit=Go&archive=false&conference=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&qualified=false The only measurable difference--at all--between the 3 team's OLs (Buf, SF, and Sea) is that SF has far fewer QB hits allowed than the others...sacks and YPC are almost identical between the 3. By the way, since you love advanced OL stats, have a look at the Adjusted Sack Rate for each team according to Football Outsiders: http://www.footballo...rs.com/stats/ol SF and Seattle are well behind Buffalo. SF also has a much lower Adjusted Line Yards than Buffalo, while Seattle's is a bit better. Keep reaching. Edited December 5, 2013 by thebandit27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheddar's Dad Posted December 5, 2013 Author Share Posted December 5, 2013 Yo Bandit. You and San Jose; youse guys are brothers, right?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Yo Bandit. You and San Jose; youse guys are brothers, right?? Feels that way sometimes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Yes, if only we could rush for 0.2 YPC more than we are now, allow 2 fewer sacks and 10 fewer QB hits over a 12-game season (which would match precisely the performance of the Seattle OL you're pining for), that would make all the difference. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?seasonType=REG&offensiveStatisticCategory=OFFENSIVE_LINE&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=RUSHING_TOTAL_AVERAGE_YDS&tabSeq=2&season=2013&role=TM&Submit=Go&archive=false&conference=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&qualified=false The only measurable difference--at all--between the 3 team's OLs (Buf, SF, and Sea) is that SF has far fewer QB hits allowed than the others...sacks and YPC are almost identical between the 3. By the way, since you love advanced OL stats, have a look at the Adjusted Sack Rate for each team according to Football Outsiders: http://www.footballo...rs.com/stats/ol SF and Seattle are well behind Buffalo. SF also has a much lower Adjusted Line Yards than Buffalo, while Seattle's is a bit better. Keep reaching. Great stuff, Bandit. I have seen a lot of advanced stats that say our D is really good, too. So why do we suck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Great stuff, Bandit. I have seen a lot of advanced stats that say our D is really good, too. So why do we suck? The short answer is that the metrics on which some advanced stats are based place a high value on sacks and turnovers, which Buffalo is very good at producing. Limiting points and yards, however, has not been their strong suit. The defense is better than it's been in a while; its aggressive nature creates opportunities for opponents to exploit...and they've done so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts