Coach Tuesday Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Did you bother to read the article? He mentions that only two players finished above 80% for POA. One of those players was a guy called Derrick Dockery. The left guard. Who they cut (after they botched the attempted trade to Detroit). Now, I am not saying the release of Dockery was a bad move, but it is apparent that Dockery was one of the better run blockers on the team, despite what some people thought of him. True. But that ain't sayin' much. And Dockery single-handedly (IMO) cost us the season last year by whiffing on his block in the first Jets game that led to the pick-six. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endless Ike Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 and this is why you never draft a RB in the first round... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britbillsfan Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 If it is Butler than that means that Peters was sub 80% on run blocks combined with his sack total and the fact that his conditioning and football intelligence (or lack thereof ) allegedly prevented us from running the no huddle. How did this guy get voted to the Pro Bowl? and rewarded with a 60 million dollar deal. Peters Graded at over 90%. It is in the comments after the article and I mentioned it earlier in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stussy109 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 who was the other lineman besides dockery above 80? My Guess would be walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 How many times does it have to posted that it was Peters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05...g-not-the-back/ I wonder who the other lineman was above 80%? With much thanks to KC Joyner, I will have a breakdown of all four AFC East teams using his run-blocking analysis. Some interesting stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VJ91 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 With much thanks to KC Joyner, I will have a breakdown of all four AFC East teams using his run-blocking analysis. Some interesting stuff. With all due respect to you, Tim, I think these stats are pretty lame. It's like when they came out with "scoring chances" and "hits" stats in hockey. Who cares how many scoring chances a team gets, the only thing that matters is how many times they convert those chances into goals. And hockey hits? That is the stupidest stat kept in all of sports today. The Stanley Cup winner each year in the NHL will lead the NHL in hits in one game, and then not have a single hit recorded the very next game, depending on the team they are playing and how the refs seem to be calling the game!! So now here we go in the NFL, as if there are not enough stats kept to begin with, we are trying to keep track of everything Offensive linemen do. Why?? The teams themselves could care less about these linemen stats! Jason Peters had like the most sacks allowed in the entire NFL last year, and then he ended up signing for the most money in history for NFL O-Linemen! I guess the Eagles were not too concerned with those sack stats, eh? And now we have all the Bills' linemen scoring 80 or lower in point of attack "wins". Then why did they cut Dockery? He was the only one who scored over 80 most of the time. If you think it's worth the time to study the AFC East teams' and their OL stats, that's cool. However I won't be reading your results. As long as a running back can break the tackle of the d-linemen who wins the "point of attack" block against the o-linemen, and still gain 20 yards, or....as long as the running back can slip and lose 3 yards despite every 0-linemen winning their point of attacks on that play, I won't waste my time reading those stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 POA. It's also apparent the Bills FO knew this as well, given our OL draftees. Good stuff! Wow, the FO realized our O-line sucked just in time for the draft? Kudos! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bladiebla Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Hmm, Peters being over 90% would also influence Dockery his performance in a positive way (having Peters to his direct left), so the Dockery figure doesn't mean much. Also I'm being curious as to the amount of runs where Peters/Dockery were POA versus the right side. My gut tells me we did the majority of the runs over the right side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I love the analysis or the process of it. The resluts on the other hand showed that the line sucked. Interesting that Dockery was one of the individuals over the threshold (barely) but he wa the first one gone after the end of the season. Now I wonder where Peters ended up. How ironic would it be if the 2 were Peters and Dockery? Edit: I see in the comments that it was, as I suspected, Peters who graded out over 90%. Did you bother to read the article? He mentions that only two players finished above 80% for POA. One of those players was a guy called Derrick Dockery. The left guard. Who they cut (after they botched the attempted trade to Detroit). Now, I am not saying the release of Dockery was a bad move, but it is apparent that Dockery was one of the better run blockers on the team, despite what some people thought of him. But the front office only gets rid of players that suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 How ironic would it be if the 2 were Peters and Dockery? It is. Peters was by far the best at just over 90%. Dockery was at just over 80%. All others were less than 80%, which was Joyner's unacceptable mark. As far as the other Bills lineman over 80%, that would be ex-Bill and current Eagle Jason Peters. He actually came in at just over the 90% mark. On a related note, I will be posting the first of the Scientific Football 2009 Lab Results on my site later today. This is an information block that will be available to readers who pre-order Scientific Football 2009. Today’s post will include the 2008 POA numbers for all of the AFC O linemen. KC — KC Joyner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 It is. Peters was by far the best at just over 90%. Dockery was at just over 80%. All others were less than 80%, which was Joyner's unacceptable mark. I know and edited my post. About Dockery: a Redskins offensive coach was saying that Dockery had really slipped from where he was when he was with Washington the first time around. They were glad to have him back and think he has a lot of ability, but the situation in Buffalo had not been good for Derrick. Both he and the Redskins know that and they are working hard to get him back on track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 It's not necessarily Peters. If we can apply math skills provided by many on this board and assume a hypothetical 46% rate by Fowler & Preston, we can estimate that the Bills' centers come up with an aggregate rate of 92% Not bad. Why did the Bills dump them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 It's not necessarily Peters. If we can apply math skills provided by many on this board and assume a hypothetical 46% rate by Fowler & Preston, we can estimate that the Bills' centers come up with an aggregate rate of 92% Not bad. Why did the Bills dump them? Peters' stupidity was the sole reason the offense didn't work, didn't you know? Like the year before the sole reason for the inept offense was that Steve Fairchild was stupid. And before that it was because the front offices always kept Jauron from having even an average QB. For a stupid guy with zero leverage, Peters sure did get exactly what he wanted -- out of Buffalo and a big pay day. And, the Bills front office got rid of their two highest graded lineman. Both for the same reason; apparently, they didn't feel like paying them. That's smart. And, bad means good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynical Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Peters' stupidity was the sole reason the offense didn't work, didn't you know? Like the year before the sole reason for the inept offense was that Steve Fairchild was stupid. And before that it was because the front offices always kept Jauron from having even an average QB. This excuse is still being used. It's their excuse "trump" card. For a stupid guy with zero leverage, Peters sure did get exactly what he wanted -- out of Buffalo and a big pay day. And, the Bills front office got rid of their two highest graded lineman -- both for the same reason, apparently, they didn't feel like paying them. That's smart. And, bad means good. I am not sad to see Dockery go, but I think letting Peters go was a mistake. Walker's play as a LT for the entire year is going to make people forget that Peters 2008 season was "bad". And I do like the drafting of the 2 OL. For once, it shows the Bills organization taking a serious stance on fixing the OL. Normally, the Bills would have cut loose Dockery, traded Peters, and then followed that by filling in those gaps with cast offs from another team, and 6th and 7th round project picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 How could it be Peters when so many others on this board said that he sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybob Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 How could it be Peters when so many others on this board said that he sucks. Most of this board has the same mentality as a jilted chick- they broke up with Peters and now Peters sucks in anyway it's possible to suck- Brad Butler is their new boyfriend now, he's so dreamy- after I said I thought Butler was a mediocre guard I got so many response that he was great that I started to doubt my eyes - so I'm relieved to find out he's under 80% at Point of attack- I'm going with my original assessment - fair at keeping DTs from shooting the gaps, fair at pulling, gets Bull rushed into the back field, seldom gets movement in the run game= Mediocre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyDingo Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 This whole argument is stupid. It's like Ross Perot said, "If ya take a shiny cockroach outta the peanut butter, it dont mean you can't ride the horse to town." Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 So now here we go in the NFL, as if there are not enough stats kept to begin with, we are trying to keep track of everything Offensive linemen do. Why?? The teams themselves could care less about these linemen stats! Jason Peters had like the most sacks allowed in the entire NFL last year, and then he ended up signing for the most money in history for NFL O-Linemen! I guess the Eagles were not too concerned with those sack stats, eh? And now we have all the Bills' linemen scoring 80 or lower in point of attack "wins". Then why did they cut Dockery? He was the only one who scored over 80 most of the time. If you think it's worth the time to study the AFC East teams' and their OL stats, that's cool. However I won't be reading your results. As long as a running back can break the tackle of the d-linemen who wins the "point of attack" block against the o-linemen, and still gain 20 yards, or....as long as the running back can slip and lose 3 yards despite every 0-linemen winning their point of attacks on that play, I won't waste my time reading those stats. We keep track of stats for quarterbacks, receivers, running backs, etc. Why not have a few stats for offensive linemen? In particular, the fact that only two of our five linemen were above the 80% threshold tells us a lot about the kind of run-blocking we had last year. The fact that Lynch and Jackson did much better when the offensive line won its battles than when it didn't tells me that, on running plays, a good line is a lot more important than a good RB. A lot of people have been making that point anyway, but Joyner backed it up with numbers. Good for him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybob Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Even better, Brad Butler behind Preston - Preston 76% Butler 75.9% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts