thebandit27 Posted December 8, 2009 Posted December 8, 2009 Ross Tucker says that RG is the most important interior spot and your best guy should go there. I had wondered why they wanted Wood at RG, but this article filled me in. It's Tucker's opinion, but seems credible. Rating the offensive line positions based on difficulty http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writ...ings/index.html FWIW, Tucker played RG for pretty much his entire career... and when his rookie contract is up, he will leave, just like everyone else who has learned the game at the bills expense... Good to see you're out spreading your usual cheer. Are you this miserable outside the board too, or are we just lucky?
Bufcomments Posted December 8, 2009 Posted December 8, 2009 Wood I think would be a better Center than Guard. I like Levetre at LG. Hangartner is just a tab better than what we had last year. He was a backup for the Panthers for a reason. I think they should put Butler back at RG. Go out in Free Agent market and get a Starting RT. Draft the best Tackle on the board and we my have a decent line. As a matter of fact the Bills would be better served if they draft lineman with 2 of the top 3 picks. I think they continue to upgrade the line with draft picks thw whole offense will be better. I like that kid from Cinny (Pike) alot as QB, lets see who they get.
C.Biscuit97 Posted December 8, 2009 Posted December 8, 2009 I hope your right but I do wonder what it is on the field that you see that gives you hope that our poor offensive line is going to be very good in the interior for years to come? Currently we are bad and we definitely can't run up the middle. It is perhaps unfair but when I think of lines that have hope of being good for years to come I think of lines that have guys like, Jake Long?, Joe Thomas, and others who get critical acclaim and make it to probowls potentially in their rookies years. I'm not saying any of our guys are "bad" but in the situations with the others I am comparing them to their lines got significantly better with their addition and didn't take a turn for the worse like ours did. I want our line to be great too but I have to maintain some degree of objectivity. Fair enough. But here's some stats from a great site. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol We are ranked 26th around left end (3.1 avg), 24th behind left tackle (3.37), 28th behind right tackle (3.59), and 11th behind right end (with a 4.69 avg which blows my mind but is inflated because it's a surprise when we run to that side). However at the mid/ guard, we are ranked 10th at 4.24 ypc. That is very impressive considering we have 2 rookies and a center who has never played with either. It is not a stretch to think they will be able to improve in the upcoming years with more time together. IMO, it is the second bright spot on this team next to our secondary.
Chandler#81 Posted December 8, 2009 Posted December 8, 2009 Fair enough. But here's some stats from a great site. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol We are ranked 26th around left end (3.1 avg), 24th behind left tackle (3.37), 28th behind right tackle (3.59), and 11th behind right end (with a 4.69 avg which blows my mind but is inflated because it's a surprise when we run to that side). However at the mid/ guard, we are ranked 10th at 4.24 ypc. That is very impressive considering we have 2 rookies and a center who has never played with either. It is not a stretch to think they will be able to improve in the upcoming years with more time together. IMO, it is the second bright spot on this team next to our secondary. Quite interesting, thanks. The premise given for the revamp last offseason was to get better running in the middle against mostly a 3-4 set. This would indicate success.. Funny, it sure doesn't seem like success though.
PDaDdy Posted December 8, 2009 Posted December 8, 2009 Fair enough. But here's some stats from a great site. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol We are ranked 26th around left end (3.1 avg), 24th behind left tackle (3.37), 28th behind right tackle (3.59), and 11th behind right end (with a 4.69 avg which blows my mind but is inflated because it's a surprise when we run to that side). However at the mid/ guard, we are ranked 10th at 4.24 ypc. That is very impressive considering we have 2 rookies and a center who has never played with either. It is not a stretch to think they will be able to improve in the upcoming years with more time together. IMO, it is the second bright spot on this team next to our secondary. While those numbers are interesting I am more focused on these numbers on that site: Power success 31st 10+ Runs 32st Sacks 31st I did find it a surprise that Buffalo ranks 10th in some "adjusted" ranking for runs up the middle. Given how generally horrible we are everywhere else it was at first weird to see this stat until I thought of who our running backs are. Our RBs and Lynch in particular are some of the VERY best in the league at driving the pile and getting extra yardage after initial contact. Jackson is really good at it too but I have seen Lynch's leg churn alone turn a 1 yard loss into a 4 yard gain. I know that stat is supposed to be "adjusted" but I can't help but think it is our RBs making something out of nothing more than the line blowing up holes for our guys. I just DO NOT see any in game dominance up the middle that would corroborate what those stats would seem to suggest. I do appreciate your attempted to find some sort of supporting documentation to back up your argument but I am definitely not sold at all. I am completely in 100% wait and see mode like I am with Maybin. If we had anyone that could play guard at an average level I think Wood and Levitre would have been on the bench most of the time like Maybin. Until I see some production on the field I have no indication that these guys are the answer. The only thing that they have going for them is that they are young and "unknown" commodities as opposed to being experienced and "known" to be bad.
Recommended Posts