Cheddar's Dad Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I don't think Pears is that bad. Remember, the guards were so bad it's a wonder the line held up at all. I think we try to renegotiate his salary and between Hairston and Pears we are okay. Bring in one very good free agent guard and draft another to compete with the young guys we have that Marone says he likes. We have a lot of holes to fill so, as much as we'd like, that's probably our best case scenario. They aren't going to get a high-priced guard and tackle in FA. Remember that always doesn't work either (Dockery and that other guy!). Legursky needs to be replaced and, in a perfect world Urbik is a depth guy. The line wasn't horrible. The run game was okay and they had to protect QBs that weren't a whole lot of help as far as knowing what to do with the ball quickly. This is a little off topic. Please excuse the rememberance. That other guy was Langston Walker, a free agent pick up off of the Raider's roster. The Dockery and Walker signings were Marv Levy's work. Dockery was signed as a free agent off the Redskins' roster and Marv gave him a contract worth about 40 some million. Walker signed for about 25 million. I attended a Bills Backers meeting at the Ralph when Marv made an appearance which was after the signings. Marv answered questions and I asked him why he signed Walker after he was let go from a Raiders' O-line that had been horrible. In asked what it was about Walker that caused Marv to sign him. Levy answered that it looked to him like Walker was about to elevate his game. Levy gave 25 mil to a player that had not been consistantly good but looked to Marv that he might develope to be that. I thought, is Marv in over his head? A year later Levy resigned. A year or so after that, Dockery and Walker were released. Marshaun Lynch was on that roster. A few years later he was traded to Seattle for a couple of 4th round picks. So many mistakes. It's hard to support them but here I am, continuing with my support. Regarding Pears and Hairston; Pears was pretty good about 3 or 4 years ago and has declined since. Hairston is where? Has anyone seen him even at the Ralph working out? A year long disappearance due to an undisclosed illness does not sound good to me and I wonder why some still think he'll be back. Even if he comes back, my recollection is that he did not have quick feet and struggled with speed rushers. Buffalo better get someone else for that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) As this thread has evolved into discussions about OL drafting strategy on top of the evaluation of current OL players, I thought I'd cut&paste a couple of posts from a different thread which directly relate to the OL......and comment on them here rather than there..... No way we take one of the least important positions on the line at RT and make it a #9 overall pick. And if they do they should be fired immediately. Now LT, maybe, but we already have a stud LT. RT we can get in the mid rounds along with a guard. Top 10 picks are for difference makers and no RT or LG in the NFL is a difference maker Why do you say RT is least important? Back in the day of Bruce Smith, a team's best pass rusher generally always played RDE against a team's LT. That no longer is the case. Look at how Mario Williams is used by the Bills. Look at how the Patriots use Chandler Jones. On one play he's on the left side, next play he's on the right. RT's today require the same skill set as do LTs. Drafting a gifted collegiate LT to play RT is a sound move in my opinion. A solid O-line makes difference makers out of average WRs, TEs, QBs and RBs. Highly drafted WRs and TEs don't have a corresponding effect on average O-linemen. Drafting one of those early WRs and relying on low drafted, or free agent, O-linemen to fend off high drafted and talented D Linemen will cause those high WR picks to disappoint and have folks like you declaring them to be a busts after one year of play. I think the perception that RT is the least important position on the OL is a product of the high importance placed upon the LT position. As most talented OTs can play both the LT and RT positions(I'm sure somebody will correct me on that assumption if I am incorrect).....any RT who would make a good LT is invariably going to become one. His value as a good starting LT to teams that don't have one is far more than that placed upon the RT position. As a result of this, the contract numbers of the LT position are the highest on the OL(obviously).....and the RT contract numbers are the lowest, thus perhaps giving the perception that the RT is the least important position on the OL. In relation to the Bills, I believe that drafting an OT at #9(who can become a great LT) is counterproductive. As we have a top 10 LT(Glenn), any other OT on the roster who becomes a decent LT is bound to be highly sought after.....and likely won't remain on the team past their initial contract(for the reasons stated above). In regards to using top 10 picks to draft "difference makers", I generally agree with matter2003......but not wholeheartedly. Cheddar's Dad to me makes some very strong points. Everybody says "What a difference maker!" when Mario flips sides and manhandles the RT causing disruption......but when(if?) he is held in check one-on-one by a great RT, very few will say the same about the RT. If that same RT was to maintain concentration throughout a game(no penalties), and open up some big holes for a Spiller to do his magic......again, very few people will perceive the RT as being a difference maker. My point being that having star non-difference makers on a team can be an extremely desirable commodity. That said, future cap ramifications enter into draft selection(at least they do with me). When a team has stars at the two most important positions on the OL as the Bills do(Glenn, Wood).....drafting other OLmen in the top 10 is generally not viable(IMO). One drafts players in the top 10 for their potential to become star players. With the modern NFL cap, it is very difficult(impossible?) to maintain a viable championship team while having to pay 3 star OLmen.......except..... ....and here is the thought I had(which has taken a while to get to)...... As the supply/demand for RTs is low(due to the LT factor mentioned above).......drafting a pure RT(one who has no ability to swing to LT) could be an extremely wise move for future team building. The end result of drafting a great prospect pure RT could mean that one could end up with a true star player at RT......for the cost of a decent LT or a very good OG(or star OC). Essentially we could end up with a player as good as Glenn(or Boselli, Pace etc) for less than the cost of Levitre. As it happens, there might be the perfect pure RT prospect in this years draft....(taken from Astrobot's DraftTek thread).... Would you like to see RT Greg Robinson, RT, added back in? Some drafts have him in top 6. I have no idea about the analysis on Greg Robertson.....or even if he is indeed a pure RT(won't be able to swing to LT)......but if he is a super NFL prospect as Astrobot suggests....and indeed a pure RT.....due to all of my thoughts above I would be very content with this pick at #9(or a similar player who fits). Edited January 11, 2014 by Dibs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 As this thread has evolved into discussions about OL drafting strategy on top of the evaluation of current OL players, I thought I'd cut&paste a couple of posts from a different thread which directly relate to the OL......and comment on them here rather than there..... I think the perception that RT is the least important position on the OL is a product of the high importance placed upon the LT position. As most talented OTs can play both the LT and RT positions(I'm sure somebody will correct me on that assumption if I am incorrect).....any RT who would make a good LT is invariably going to become one. His value as a good starting LT to teams that don't have one is far more than that placed upon the RT position. As a result of this, the contract numbers of the LT position are the highest on the OL(obviously).....and the RT contract numbers are the lowest, thus perhaps giving the perception that the RT is the least important position on the OL. In relation to the Bills, I believe that drafting an OT at #9(who can become a great LT) is counterproductive. As we have a top 10 LT(Glenn), any other OT on the roster who becomes a decent LT is bound to be highly sought after.....and likely won't remain on the team past their initial contract(for the reasons stated above). In regards to using top 10 picks to draft "difference makers", I generally agree with matter2003......but not wholeheartedly. Cheddar's Dad to me makes some very strong points. Everybody says "What a difference maker!" when Mario flips sides and manhandles the RT causing disruption......but when(if?) he is held in check one-on-one by a great RT, very few will say the same about the RT. If that same RT was to maintain concentration throughout a game(no penalties), and open up some big holes for a Spiller to do his magic......again, very few people will perceive the RT as being a difference maker. My point being that having star non-difference makers on a team can be an extremely desirable commodity. That said, future cap ramifications enter into draft selection(at least they do with me). When a team has stars at the two most important positions on the OL as the Bills do(Glenn, Wood).....drafting other OLmen in the top 10 is generally not viable(IMO). One drafts players in the top 10 for their potential to become star players. With the modern NFL cap, it is very difficult(impossible?) to maintain a viable championship team while having to pay 3 star OLmen.......except..... ....and here is the thought I had(which has taken a while to get to)...... As the supply/demand for RTs is low(due to the LT factor mentioned above).......drafting a pure RT(one who has no ability to swing to LT) could be an extremely wise move for future team building. The end result of drafting a great prospect pure RT could mean that one could end up with a true star player at RT......for the cost of a decent LT or a very good OG(or star OC). Essentially we could end up with a player as good as Glenn(or Boselli, Pace etc) for less than the cost of Levitre. As it happens, there might be the perfect pure RT prospect in this years draft....(taken from Astrobot's DraftTek thread).... I have no idea about the analysis on Greg Robertson.....or even if he is indeed a pure RT(won't be able to swing to LT)......but if he is a super NFL prospect as Astrobot suggests....and indeed a pure RT.....due to all of my thoughts above I would be very content with this pick at #9(or a similar player who fits). The statistical data from how teams draft (and pay) that I'm aware of would order the OL positions: LT, RT, LG, C, and last ST and RG. RT is second only to LT in terms of importance. LT and RT are not really interchangeable parts. Teams are typically "right handed" -- they run to the right and line up a TE on that side -- and would want the elite pass protector at LT and a powerful run blocker at RT. LG is typically a position where you want a guy that can run, pull on sweeps and get out to the second level and has power. The ideal C knows your offense like your QB and OC; you see teams stick with a good C for very long periods of time. They may need to play in a phone booth with a NG or get downfield in the run game. RG is the "least important" position on the line and many teams will value a backup T more than a RG. The RG is your consummate "wheel dog" -- a power guy that can drive block in the running game and maul in the trenches. On the other hand, the line functions as a unit and having any one position along the line be a weakness is an opportunity for NFL DC's to eat your lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 The statistical data from how teams draft (and pay) that I'm aware of would order the OL positions: LT, RT, LG, C, and last ST and RG. RT is second only to LT in terms of importance. LT and RT are not really interchangeable parts. Teams are typically "right handed" -- they run to the right and line up a TE on that side -- and would want the elite pass protector at LT and a powerful run blocker at RT. LG is typically a position where you want a guy that can run, pull on sweeps and get out to the second level and has power. The ideal C knows your offense like your QB and OC; you see teams stick with a good C for very long periods of time. They may need to play in a phone booth with a NG or get downfield in the run game. RG is the "least important" position on the line and many teams will value a backup T more than a RG. The RG is your consummate "wheel dog" -- a power guy that can drive block in the running game and maul in the trenches. On the other hand, the line functions as a unit and having any one position along the line be a weakness is an opportunity for NFL DC's to eat your lunch. Thanks for that. I think that is the first time I have seen the OL broken down and explained in such a manner. Very handy for OL dummies like myself. I'll pick you up on your "and pay" assumption though. At the moment, RT is the lowest paid position on the OL(I'll show links later). Assuming that you are correct in that the RT is the 2nd most valuable position on the OL......to me this highlights my point about the value of obtaining a star RT for ones team. I'm sure there are vastly more complexities etc.....but it really seems to me that if one ends up with a star RT(who can't convert to LT), they won't have to pay star OLman rates when the player matures. ....and if they end up with a very good(but not great) RT(who can't convert to LT), it looks like payment in the $3m-$3.5m/year range would be enough to keep them long term. Here are links to OL salaries(each ordered from highest "Average per Year"). LT: http://www.overthecap.com/top-player-salaries.php?Position=LT RT: http://www.overthecap.com/top-player-salaries.php?Position=RT OG(no distinction between LG/RG unfortunately): http://www.overthecap.com/top-player-salaries.php?Position=G OC: http://www.overthecap.com/top-player-salaries.php?Position=C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Thanks for that. I think that is the first time I have seen the OL broken down and explained in such a manner. Very handy for OL dummies like myself. I'll pick you up on your "and pay" assumption though. At the moment, RT is the lowest paid position on the OL(I'll show links later). Assuming that you are correct in that the RT is the 2nd most valuable position on the OL......to me this highlights my point about the value of obtaining a star RT for ones team. I'm sure there are vastly more complexities etc.....but it really seems to me that if one ends up with a star RT(who can't convert to LT), they won't have to pay star OLman rates when the player matures. ....and if they end up with a very good(but not great) RT(who can't convert to LT), it looks like payment in the $3m-$3.5m/year range would be enough to keep them long term. Here are links to OL salaries(each ordered from highest "Average per Year"). LT: http://www.overtheca...php?Position=LT RT: http://www.overtheca...php?Position=RT OG(no distinction between LG/RG unfortunately): http://www.overtheca....php?Position=G OC: http://www.overtheca....php?Position=C Thanks for the links Dibs. I was going by what I remembered from a few years ago. I didn't break down this data (no time), but by rough eyeball, I see 7 Cs, 14 Gs, and 7 RTs with numbers $5M/yr. or better. So (very roughly) about even. LT in comparison has 21. Obviously, hugely disproportionate. And, we still see LTs come off the board early in the draft. Also, things evolve. As the up-tempo principles become more popular and the ball is getting out on the perimeter faster, teams may feel they don't need to spend huge money on a blindside protector, but need to be strong up the middle. The running game is evolving as well. It's not important how an offense rips off huge chunks of yardage, after all, just that they do so, since offense is the new defense. Manufacture those plays on the ground when most defenses are geared up to try to slow down a passing game is an advantage for the offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Thanks for the kudos but I do not consider myself to be an expert. It is however what I watch. Yesterday, I spent the day watching DJ Fluker lol. Here's my quick rundown: 1) Glenn is a fine LT. 2)LG? NOT to hijack the thread but Levitre was a perfect fit for this passing league and especially this team with inexperienced qbs. The only college guard I have seen this season is Gabe Jackson and I like him a lot. 3) Wood is a mauler and stayed healthy this season. I'm very glad we kept him. 4) Urbik is a middle of the pack guard. No more no less. 5) Pears is interesting. I have no idea why posters think he is so bad. He is extremely strong and sometimes his movement surprises me. That said, I am not a doctor but I suspect that he is a little beat up. Keep in mind that he is a PURE RT and has no hope of playing the left side. And wrt Hairston, will he even be in the NFL next year? I have no idea what is/was wrong with him but he was a fine backup. Notice the "was" and without him I am seeing zero depth. Regarding Koundjio from Bama, I remind you once again that in 2012, he was the 4th best blocker on the team. I like him, but #9 seems just a bit early. In summary the Bills have a dire (self created) need at LG. RT seems less pressing but one injury changes this. Ino, they need to strongly address the OL in the draft. You must be very surprised to read this! PS: If you want to have some fun, focus on big #76 on the Chargers(Fluker), and keep in mind that he is a rookie. But remember, he was drafted unusually early (#11) for a RT. WOW can this kid play!!!!! Thanks. I appreciated this breakdown. What round do you think we go after a LG? I'm betting third. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) I have read all of this. How anyone could criticise or even diminish what Glenn has done is blasphemy and should be be banned. Glenn is okay !? What ?! Glenn is awesome and continues to improve. Wood , glad he is healthy for a whole season . Still not sure how good a play caller he is . I lean towards competent or better. Now for the other 3. They are each in question. Both guards have affected Woods ability to get out there . He has been helping out too much and i think that has reduced his true effective potential while creating undue stress sorting out whether to help his right side or his left when at time he needed to help both ! One thing is very apparent is that Nate is going to be limited when at least two if not 3 of the O line positions are upgraded and or supported/challenged. Gotta fix one of them immediately in FA. even if Littman needs to cough up the money from of his spare change jar . this can be fixed in one season off i bet Edited January 11, 2014 by 3rdand12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts