Lack of OT's May Kill BILLS Again!

[BobChalmers]

That coupled with our QBs is why most publications have us as one of if not the worst team in the NFL this coming season. Phil Steele, one of the top FB magazine writers in the country has us going 2-14, primarily because of the aforementioned positions.

 

And it just sounds dumber every time it's repeated.

 

We were 6-10 last year with the same QB's and OT's, and a harder schedule. How in hell does keeping the same young players a year later cost us four MORE games???

 

Phil Steele is clearly an imbecile, or more likely, yet another lazy national sports writer who doesn't bother to consider simple details like the one I just offered.

[Doc]

You don't go about rebuilding by getting worse. We are worse than we were at the close of last season. worse in receivers, worse on the O-line in starters and depth and worse on defense. I don't see that as a good start.

How are they worse on the O-line in starters than at the close of last season? Or defense? I agree with WR.

[tennesseeboy]

on defense we have a whole new and untested defensive line structure and a bizarre situation with defensive ends converting to linebacker. We have lost Aaron Schobel, our best defensive lineman.

 

On Offensive line we have no viable starting tackles. I'm sorry but Green was a relief for Oakland (OAKLAND!) to be rid of and is probably no better here. Incognito who was a capable starting gaurd was gone (and whine about him til sunset...he'll probably start for the Dolphins). Wood has yet to show a complete recovery in games.

 

We're still stuck in the mud at quarterback, tight end and are marginally better at running back, although I don't think we really needed to get marginally better at running back. The "marginally better" assumes Spiller is going to sign in time to do anything this year.

 

There were plenty of real opportunities to get better, or at least not get worse. We didn't do it. I for one am not happy with giving Buddy and Chan a "bye" for a number of years in the drive to get better.

[tennesseeboy]

Let me be clear on where the bills are in my opinion, lest people think I'm too negative. Assuming Green and someone else can be marginal at the OT positions there is no reason we should not win more games than last year. Last year was a snakebit year with coaching changes on a weekly basis, a spate of injuries, and poor coaching. There is no reason this team right now couldn't win 7 or 8 or even 9 games with good coaching.

[Meathead]

We were 6-10 last year with the same QB's and OT's, and a harder schedule. How in hell does keeping the same young players a year later cost us four MORE games???

if a business kept all of the same employees but hired a new mgmt team and installed completely new processes and computer systems would they suffer a significant productivity hit in the short term?

[Doc]

on defense we have a whole new and untested defensive line structure and a bizarre situation with defensive ends converting to linebacker. We have lost Aaron Schobel, our best defensive lineman.

 

On Offensive line we have no viable starting tackles. I'm sorry but Green was a relief for Oakland (OAKLAND!) to be rid of and is probably no better here. Incognito who was a capable starting gaurd was gone (and whine about him til sunset...he'll probably start for the Dolphins). Wood has yet to show a complete recovery in games.

 

We're still stuck in the mud at quarterback, tight end and are marginally better at running back, although I don't think we really needed to get marginally better at running back. The "marginally better" assumes Spiller is going to sign in time to do anything this year.

 

There were plenty of real opportunities to get better, or at least not get worse. We didn't do it. I for one am not happy with giving Buddy and Chan a "bye" for a number of years in the drive to get better.

When switching from a 4-3 to a 3-4, in lieu of getting all new personnel, which is impractical, the SOP is to switch DT's to DE's and DE's to LB's. Look at most teams over the years who made the switch and this is exactly what they've done. Schobel was the Bills' best DL, in a 4-3, but would have been wholly overmatched as a 4-3 DE. And as a 3-4 OLB, he may have been good, but he never showed-up for the Bills to find out. But the Bills' secondary should still be very good and the run defense can only improve, while the 3-4 will add the element of unpredictability for opposing offenses, as well as allowing the offense to practice against, and get familiar with, it.

 

On the O-line, Wood (who is healthy, don't worry) and Levitre are the starting OG's and should be improved in their 2nd year, and Hangman should be better for it. Incognito wouldn't have started for the Bills and his penchant for taking penalties is a detriment, although it's something Cornell Green has to work on as well. LT should be no worse than last year, but that's not an endorsement. I just don't see the O-line as being even just the same as last year, much less worse. That line was a mess after Butler went down, and only got worse other players got injured.

 

At RB, having Lynch motivated and there for all the games is an improvement. When Spiller joins, it will help even more. At TE, they should also be better. At QB, it may be more of the same, but no worse. WR I agree is worse, until proven otherwise.

[BillsVet]

LT should be no worse than last year, but that's not an endorsement. I just don't see the O-line as being even just the same as last year, much less worse. That line was a mess after Butler went down, and only got worse other players got injured.

 

At RB, having Lynch motivated and there for all the games is an improvement. When Spiller joins, it will help even more. At TE, they should also be better. At QB, it may be more of the same, but no worse. WR I agree is worse, until proven otherwise.

 

46 sacks allowed last season says the OL was worse to begin with. If they're the same, I expect more of the same bad pass protection and an inability to convert in short yardage. Chalk it up to injuries, inexperience, lack of talent, whatever. They were not good and never adequately developed a plan to stock the position with talent post-Peters. Go ahead and say they couldn't do everything in one year, but rebuilding teams don't take RB's when their OT's are among the league's worst.

 

There's a theory on TBD that says RB's can make a bad line look better which is patently false Aside from Barry Sanders and Walter Payton, there aren't many who can do this. Aside from Steven Jackson, I don't know of a good running back having success behind a bad to mediocre OL in today's NFL.

 

IMO, Gailey attempts to build a run-first offense. How he does that with little talent at OT is beyond me. And forbid them having an injury on the interior, where no one has more than a handful of games experience at C or G.

[BobChalmers]

if a business kept all of the same employees but hired a new mgmt team and installed completely new processes and computer systems would they suffer a significant productivity hit in the short term?

 

I think there's a fair argument the defense might take a hit adjusting to the change in scheme, although I'm very excited by the change of emhasis from zone to m2m for the DB's - they are the most talented unit, putting the pressure on them is clearly smart.

 

On the other hand, the offense has every reason to improve, unless we think the loss of Josh Reed and T.O. is really that fatal. I've been a fan of what I saw out of Steve Johnson when he had a chance to play last year, so I'm less worried about the WR's.

 

All the talk about the OL and QB being bad justifying the team getting worse is just plain absurd - it's the same young guys, a year more experienced and (so far) healthier.

 

It's been said before, but bears repeating - when the starting 5 OL was healthy and began the season in NE, did you watch that game and say, boy this is a 2-14 team because Trent Edwards and the OL sucked?? They weren't amazing, but they were OK and had the Bills in a position to win that game. So why in hell is it sensible to say Trent and the OL mean a 2-14 team now???

[Doc]

46 sacks allowed last season says the OL was worse to begin with. If they're the same, I expect more of the same bad pass protection and an inability to convert in short yardage. Chalk it up to injuries, inexperience, lack of talent, whatever. They were not good and never adequately developed a plan to stock the position with talent post-Peters. Go ahead and say they couldn't do everything in one year, but rebuilding teams don't take RB's when their OT's are among the league's worst.

Depends on the quality of the OT's in the draft. And that will be determined by how the players do in the NFL.

There's a theory on TBD that says RB's can make a bad line look better which is patently false Aside from Barry Sanders and Walter Payton, there aren't many who can do this. Aside from Steven Jackson, I don't know of a good running back having success behind a bad to mediocre OL in today's NFL.

 

IMO, Gailey attempts to build a run-first offense. How he does that with little talent at OT is beyond me. And forbid them having an injury on the interior, where no one has more than a handful of games experience at C or G.

Considering the Bills were tied for 8th in rushing average last year, with an inept and predicatable scheme and a revolving door at the OT spots, I'm not overly concerned about the running game. And Green is better at run blocking than anyone who manned the RT spot last year, outside of Butler (in his 2 games). They may struggle again running over LT.

[tennesseeboy]

Doc, I agree that VERY much hinges on how our tackles perform. If Green plays right tackle and is a good run blocker, we could be very dangerous in the run game. If we are very dangerous in the run game we could have a very good time of possession situation (see the Giants game plan against the Bills in the first superbowl). It would go a long way toward making us competitive. I am skeptical of our tackles, but I would be delighted to be wrong.

[BillsVet]

Depends on the quality of the OT's in the draft. And that will be determined by how the players do in the NFL.

 

Considering the Bills were tied for 8th in rushing average last year, with an inept and predicatable scheme and a revolving door at the OT spots, I'm not overly concerned about the running game. And Green is better at run blocking than anyone who manned the RT spot last year, outside of Butler (in his 2 games). They may struggle again running over LT.

 

Every player in the draft is therefore a risk because they haven't taken a snap in the NFL. You don't simply eschew those positions like OT that are risks because they could fail. The 49ers thought enough of Anthony Davis to take him 11th. GB chose Bulaga 23rd. Both of those organizations are not in rebuild mode, but chose OT's.

 

You'd be hard-pressed to find an organization that hasn't used a 1st or 2nd on an OT in the past 5 seasons. Some teams are able to find guys later, but Buffalo isn't one of them. And so they select project players who they hope develop. Just once I'd like a guy with the measureables to begin from day 1. But that'd be too much of a risk.

 

I'm quite certain that teams will key in on the run and force Buffalo to pass. When that happens, those OT's are going to need a lot of help, minimizing the options in the passing game for whomever is still upright to play QB. I see a lot of 8 in the box treatment until they can overcome the pressure. Bell and Green will be tested early and often.

 

As for the team being "8th in rushing average" that tells only the slice of the story you'd like. They were 16th in yards and 29th in rushing TD's too. Rushing average is simply a misleading stat. Personally, I'd love to know how they fared in short yardage, how they fared on 1st and 10, and how they fared in situations where running would be harder, like say 3rd and 6. That's what tells me if they can run the ball effectively, not a cherry-picked stat which isn't specific.

[Ramius]

Every player in the draft is therefore a risk because they haven't taken a snap in the NFL. You don't simply eschew those positions like OT that are risks because they could fail. The 49ers thought enough of Anthony Davis to take him 11th. GB chose Bulaga 23rd. Both of those organizations are not in rebuild mode, but chose OT's.

 

You'd be hard-pressed to find an organization that hasn't used a 1st or 2nd on an OT in the past 5 seasons. Some teams are able to find guys later, but Buffalo isn't one of them. And so they select project players who they hope develop. Just once I'd like a guy with the measureables to begin from day 1. But that'd be too much of a risk.

 

I'm quite certain that teams will key in on the run and force Buffalo to pass. When that happens, those OT's are going to need a lot of help, minimizing the options in the passing game for whomever is still upright to play QB. I see a lot of 8 in the box treatment until they can overcome the pressure. Bell and Green will be tested early and often.

 

As for the team being "8th in rushing average" that tells only the slice of the story you'd like. They were 16th in yards and 29th in rushing TD's too. Rushing average is simply a misleading stat. Personally, I'd love to know how they fared in short yardage, how they fared on 1st and 10, and how they fared in situations where running would be harder, like say 3rd and 6. That's what tells me if they can run the ball effectively, not a cherry-picked stat which isn't specific.

 

Good teams do not reach for a player to fill a need (Bulaga). They take the best player on the board, because you never know when position of depth will turn into a position of need. There were no OTs worth the #9 spot. So they took the BPA.

[Doc]

Every player in the draft is therefore a risk because they haven't taken a snap in the NFL. You don't simply eschew those positions like OT that are risks because they could fail. The 49ers thought enough of Anthony Davis to take him 11th. GB chose Bulaga 23rd. Both of those organizations are not in rebuild mode, but chose OT's.

 

You'd be hard-pressed to find an organization that hasn't used a 1st or 2nd on an OT in the past 5 seasons. Some teams are able to find guys later, but Buffalo isn't one of them. And so they select project players who they hope develop. Just once I'd like a guy with the measureables to begin from day 1. But that'd be too much of a risk.

I doubt the Bills went into the draft saying "we're going to bypass all the quality LT's (they signed Green to be the starting RT) because we want to piss guys like BillsVet off!" And Davis is a huge risk, while the concensus on Bulaga is that he's a RT. But it will be interesting to see what becomes of them, as well as the other LT's the Bills bypassed.

 

I'm quite certain that teams will key in on the run and force Buffalo to pass. When that happens, those OT's are going to need a lot of help, minimizing the options in the passing game for whomever is still upright to play QB. I see a lot of 8 in the box treatment until they can overcome the pressure. Bell and Green will be tested early and often.

I have no doubt teams will try and stack the box. It will be up to Gailey, the QB and WR's to make them pay for it.

As for the team being "8th in rushing average" that tells only the slice of the story you'd like. They were 16th in yards and 29th in rushing TD's too. Rushing average is simply a misleading stat. Personally, I'd love to know how they fared in short yardage, how they fared on 1st and 10, and how they fared in situations where running would be harder, like say 3rd and 6. That's what tells me if they can run the ball effectively, not a cherry-picked stat which isn't specific.

The Bills were 16th in rushing because they were 21st in attempts. As for TD's, that's because they weren't in a lot of goal-line situations and they didn't break a lot of long runs (which makes the average even more impressive).

[JohnC]

Every player in the draft is therefore a risk because they haven't taken a snap in the NFL. You don't simply eschew those positions like OT that are risks because they could fail. The 49ers thought enough of Anthony Davis to take him 11th. GB chose Bulaga 23rd. Both of those organizations are not in rebuild mode, but chose OT's.

 

There were two highly rated OTs who were gone when the Bills made their first pick. Anthony Davis was simply a red flag risk player who the Bills couldn't afford to take a chance on. Why draft a player who is known to give inconsistent efforts in college? Why draft a player who is out of shape when a number of team reps show up at his campus and he isn't able to participate because he is not in shape? If that isn't a sign of immaturity and a lack of discipline then I don't know what is.

 

I liked Bulaga. Most draft boards had ranked where he was drafted. Why take a player with a consensus ranking in the twenties when you can get a play maker player who is ranked in the top ten? The Bills need talent all over the field, both on offense and defense. I certainly am not going to be critical of our front office drafting a top ten player in the top ten. That is smart drafting.

 

With respect to the Bills not having quality OTs and not addressing that area of need I heartily agree with you. Jammal Brown was on the market. The Redskins got him for a miniscule price. The Bills stayed with the status quo. In my view this new regime Nix/Gailey is taking a big risk in going with what they got. Maybe, some time later in training camp and preseason they can acquire a stop gap OT to help out. If not, the offense is going to be overwhelmed again.

[mpl6876]

My argument required you to factor-in the Bills' situation, Thurm. I'm sorry if I was asking too much of you. For example, I asked you for "proven NFL ready LT's from the past 2 drafts," which was admittedly a loaded question since the rookies haven't proven themselves. You gave me LT's from the 2008 draft, when the Bills still had Peters on the roster.

 

As for players being picked before the Bills get a chance at them, your beef is that the Bills haven't addressed the LT spot. How can they address a spot with a player if that player is already gone? Now if you are saying that they should have traded up 4 spots for Monroe last year, much less higher for the Smiths (neither of whom played LT last year), that's a different argument entirely. And your claim that Monroe's last few games prove he was "NFL ready" is weak at best (and reminiscent of the "Butler and Incognito were the Bills' best OL based on 2-3 games of work), while again Vollmer received a ton of help (that's from watching him, not reading it off of pff). So at best you have 2 LT's in 2009 who showed they might be NFL ready, and one was taken 3 spots before the Bills first drafted, and we're still waiting on the 2010 rookies to prove themselves. The point being, I wouldn't exactly rail on the Bills for failing to address the LT position last year, or even this year, just yet.

 

Your changing the facts again.

 

Doc, "man up" and say hey Thurm I was wrong. Your credibility will go a lot further then skirting around the issues and continuing to change the premises of your argument.

[mpl6876]

Let me be clear on where the bills are in my opinion, lest people think I'm too negative. Assuming Green and someone else can be marginal at the OT positions there is no reason we should not win more games than last year. Last year was a snakebit year with coaching changes on a weekly basis, a spate of injuries, and poor coaching. There is no reason this team right now couldn't win 7 or 8 or even 9 games with good coaching.

 

Tennessee, I agree with almost everything you have posted.

 

I have a difficult time understanding how Bills fans are able to justify putting a positive spin on what the new regime has done.

[mpl6876]

46 sacks allowed last season says the OL was worse to begin with. If they're the same, I expect more of the same bad pass protection and an inability to convert in short yardage. Chalk it up to injuries, inexperience, lack of talent, whatever. They were not good and never adequately developed a plan to stock the position with talent post-Peters. Go ahead and say they couldn't do everything in one year, but rebuilding teams don't take RB's when their OT's are among the league's worst.

 

There's a theory on TBD that says RB's can make a bad line look better which is patently false Aside from Barry Sanders and Walter Payton, there aren't many who can do this. Aside from Steven Jackson, I don't know of a good running back having success behind a bad to mediocre OL in today's NFL.

 

IMO, Gailey attempts to build a run-first offense. How he does that with little talent at OT is beyond me. And forbid them having an injury on the interior, where no one has more than a handful of games experience at C or G.

 

Solid solid post. Great stuff there.

[mpl6876]

Good teams do not reach for a player to fill a need (Bulaga). They take the best player on the board, because you never know when position of depth will turn into a position of need. There were no OTs worth the #9 spot. So they took the BPA.

 

Mike Singletary and the 49ers took Davis at number 11. What does that mean to you?

[mpl6876]

I doubt the Bills went into the draft saying "we're going to bypass all the quality LT's (they signed Green to be the starting RT) because we want to piss guys like BillsVet off!" And Davis is a huge risk, while the concensus on Bulaga is that he's a RT. But it will be interesting to see what becomes of them, as well as the other LT's the Bills bypassed.

 

 

I have no doubt teams will try and stack the box. It will be up to Gailey, the QB and WR's to make them pay for it.

The Bills were 16th in rushing because they were 21st in attempts. As for TD's, that's because they weren't in a lot of goal-line situations and they didn't break a lot of long runs (which makes the average even more impressive).

 

 

Don't hold your breath.

 

Great thread.

[Andre Speed]

I hear Wolford, Ballard, Hull, Davis, and Ritcher are interested in playing again ( ).

no deal. i'm holding out for: Foley, McKenzie, Montler, Delamielleure, and Green !

 

isn't it funny how we remember these guys ? only in buffalo !

(ok, i spelt joe d's name from memory, so cut me some slack lol)

 

~AS