My thoughts on O line...

[OCinBuffalo]

I think Gailey's offense is predicated on not having to rely on an awesome O line. It's become clear in terms of the type of plays that we call. And, those plays also account for the weather in Buffalo.

 

I don't remember a play from this past game, or for the last few games last season, that is designed to take longer than 2 seconds to develop. Or, if it does, it develops with the intended ball carrier, RB or WR, with the ball already in his hands and he is moving. This changes the O line's job from holding their ground at the point of attack, to more of a moving down the field and hitting people on the run approach.

 

Conversely, I don't know if Gailey is simply shaping the offense based on what he has to work with, or, if he had the best O line in football, if he wouldn't be calling these type of plays anyway. Perhaps a little of both? I don't know if this is intentional and has to do with money, i,e, they don't want to expend resources on the O line, and would rather spend them on the D line, but it sure seems that way.

 

In all cases, although some posters swear by having a power offense in Buffalo(weather, intimidation, etc.), it seems we aren't headed in that direction. The main problem with this quick-play type of offense, and we saw a little of it in the last game, is that if a team drops into zone, it can cause some problems. If you aren't playing man to man, then misdirection doesn't work as well, in any sport, because a defensive zone means all defenders have their eyes on the ball, and not as much on their man.

 

The way to beat a zone, for this team, is to predict when they are going to be in zone, and then call a play that overloads(i.e. more people in the left flat than they have defenders) a part of the zone. This way, you can still get a quick play off, and in theory, you have automatic blockers ahead of wherever the ball goes. That's why we keep seeing all kinds of screens. The other way you beat a zone is with quickness/speed, as the defenders are playing "off" = giving up space in trade for time to react. If you can get to where they aren't, and gain that space before they can react, you win. Brad Smith showed that quite well this past game.

 

The theory seems to be that the O line will be more of a set of guys running around, than a wall to stand/run behind. We'll see.

[Kelly the Dog]

IMO, based on watching several different incarnations of Gailey's offenses, it is solely based on seeing what he has, and then molding a strategy around masking the deficiencies and simultaneously, putting players in a position to do what they do well. He knew our line sucked, so he kept the TE in to block or at least chip the rushers.

 

Edwards was clearly the better QB in practice and played well in pre-season but he knew after one game that he couldn't handle pressure in the real games so he quickly not only demoted him, he cut him, knowing that pass rush would likely continue all season.

 

He wanted to start and play Spiller more, and started him in game one, but he quickly saw that Spiller couldn't pick up pass rushers and he needed Marshawn or Freddy in there to mask the woes of the OL, too.

 

People think Evans wasn't any good because he didn't catch many passes, but that's because Fitz had to read the defense and get the ball off in two seconds like you said, often getting blasted. Most of the time there wasn't enough time to throw. For a while there Gailey was buying time by fooling the defensive ends when the center or guards pulled on passing plays.

 

All of these things were done by necessity, based on what his team could and couldn't do. When he saw how smart Fitz was at reading defenses quickly AND willing to take chances on letting the receivers make catches on what some would call ill fated passes, he started designing his play calling around it. And Fitz flourished. He saaw what he could do with Roscoe and utilized what he did well. Same with D Nelson.

 

I actually don't think at all that Nix and Gailey don't believe in upgrading the OL, I think they knew it was going to be a three year overhaul and you can't just pick up good OL anywhere.They decided we needed to fix the woeful run D first and did it. There werent a lot of OL out there in FA that fit the kind of player they want, and they went after one of the few that did, Clabo. (I wish they would have offered more but that is not Nix's call).

 

Gailey does, however, like to utilize a mobile quarterback, and knows how to do it. He would have done more of the Wildcat thing even if they didn't sign Brad Smith (as evidenced by signing Nesbitt before Smith) but I would anything that Gailey targeted Smith as the one player he wanted most in FA. He wanted Thigpen, too, although strictly as a back-up and insurance should Fitz not be signed next year.

[Erik Flowers]

So you think Gailey has a ****ty o-line by design and intent and preference?

[tennesseeboy]

Improving the offensive line didn't have to be a three year process. There have been two drafts and two free agency periods in addition to the possibility of trades. Using a tight end as a quasi tackle and failing to utilize a first round draft pick halfback because of lack of confidence in the o-line is not a way to build a team. With all due respect, we needed an offensive tackle more than we needed Spiller.

The best way to compensate for a bad offensive line is to get good offensive linemen.

[Merriman_sacks_Brady]

I

The way to beat a zone, for this team, is to predict when they are going to be in zone, and then call a play that overloads(i.e. more people in the le

how do you predict? Crystal ball or magic eight ball?

[Erik Flowers]

Improving the offensive line didn't have to be a three year process. There have been two drafts and two free agency periods in addition to the possibility of trades. Using a tight end as a quasi tackle and failing to utilize a first round draft pick halfback because of lack of confidence in the o-line is not a way to build a team. With all due respect, we needed an offensive tackle more than we needed Spiller.

The best way to compensate for a bad offensive line is to get good offensive linemen.

[BillsObserver]

IMO, based on watching several different incarnations of Gailey's offenses, it is solely based on seeing what he has, and then molding a strategy around masking the deficiencies and simultaneously, putting players in a position to do what they do well. He knew our line sucked, so he kept the TE in to block or at least chip the rushers.

 

Edwards was clearly the better QB in practice and played well in pre-season but he knew after one game that he couldn't handle pressure in the real games so he quickly not only demoted him, he cut him, knowing that pass rush would likely continue all season.

 

He wanted to start and play Spiller more, and started him in game one, but he quickly saw that Spiller couldn't pick up pass rushers and he needed Marshawn or Freddy in there to mask the woes of the OL, too.

 

People think Evans wasn't any good because he didn't catch many passes, but that's because Fitz had to read the defense and get the ball off in two seconds like you said, often getting blasted. Most of the time there wasn't enough time to throw. For a while there Gailey was buying time by fooling the defensive ends when the center or guards pulled on passing plays.

 

All of these things were done by necessity, based on what his team could and couldn't do. When he saw how smart Fitz was at reading defenses quickly AND willing to take chances on letting the receivers make catches on what some would call ill fated passes, he started designing his play calling around it. And Fitz flourished. He saaw what he could do with Roscoe and utilized what he did well. Same with D Nelson.

 

I actually don't think at all that Nix and Gailey don't believe in upgrading the OL, I think they knew it was going to be a three year overhaul and you can't just pick up good OL anywhere.They decided we needed to fix the woeful run D first and did it. There werent a lot of OL out there in FA that fit the kind of player they want, and they went after one of the few that did, Clabo. (I wish they would have offered more but that is not Nix's call).

 

Gailey does, however, like to utilize a mobile quarterback, and knows how to do it. He would have done more of the Wildcat thing even if they didn't sign Brad Smith (as evidenced by signing Nesbitt before Smith) but I would anything that Gailey targeted Smith as the one player he wanted most in FA. He wanted Thigpen, too, although strictly as a back-up and insurance should Fitz not be signed next year.

 

Great post, Kelly.

[RealityCheck]

I think Gailey's offense is predicated on not having to rely on an awesome O line. It's become clear in terms of the type of plays that we call. And, those plays also account for the weather in Buffalo.

 

I don't remember a play from this past game, or for the last few games last season, that is designed to take longer than 2 seconds to develop. Or, if it does, it develops with the intended ball carrier, RB or WR, with the ball already in his hands and he is moving. This changes the O line's job from holding their ground at the point of attack, to more of a moving down the field and hitting people on the run approach.

 

Conversely, I don't know if Gailey is simply shaping the offense based on what he has to work with, or, if he had the best O line in football, if he wouldn't be calling these type of plays anyway. Perhaps a little of both? I don't know if this is intentional and has to do with money, i,e, they don't want to expend resources on the O line, and would rather spend them on the D line, but it sure seems that way.

 

In all cases, although some posters swear by having a power offense in Buffalo(weather, intimidation, etc.), it seems we aren't headed in that direction. The main problem with this quick-play type of offense, and we saw a little of it in the last game, is that if a team drops into zone, it can cause some problems. If you aren't playing man to man, then misdirection doesn't work as well, in any sport, because a defensive zone means all defenders have their eyes on the ball, and not as much on their man.

 

The way to beat a zone, for this team, is to predict when they are going to be in zone, and then call a play that overloads(i.e. more people in the left flat than they have defenders) a part of the zone. This way, you can still get a quick play off, and in theory, you have automatic blockers ahead of wherever the ball goes. That's why we keep seeing all kinds of screens. The other way you beat a zone is with quickness/speed, as the defenders are playing "off" = giving up space in trade for time to react. If you can get to where they aren't, and gain that space before they can react, you win. Brad Smith showed that quite well this past game.

 

The theory seems to be that the O line will be more of a set of guys running around, than a wall to stand/run behind. We'll see.

[OCinBuffalo]

So you think Gailey has a ****ty o-line by design and intent and preference?

 

No. I think that was the case when he got here, and he was smart enough to recognize it and act accordingly. Rather than what we had: run "the system" no matter what.

 

Not really sure what you mean by "intent". It was what it was when he got it, intent had nothing to do with the reality he had to deal with. He has made some headway working with what he had.

 

The only question for me is "preference". As I said, we'll see. If this style of offense works, why would he change it? Just so we can say we have a good O line?

 

Why should we put resources into that, and not into say, a star QB? If anything, I want to trade up and get the best QB we can get, let him learn under Fitz, and take the time to build the line so that when said rookie is ready, so is the line.

 

 

 

 

how do you predict? Crystal ball or magic eight ball?

 

Yes, the offensive coordinators in this league have no way to predict zone defenses...neither do the QBs or WRs. In fact Fitz has no idea how to read zone at the line of scrimmage...

 

....other than a magic 8 ball.

 

Edited August 15, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[RealityCheck]

Improving the offensive line didn't have to be a three year process. There have been two drafts and two free agency periods in addition to the possibility of trades. Using a tight end as a quasi tackle and failing to utilize a first round draft pick halfback because of lack of confidence in the o-line is not a way to build a team. With all due respect, we needed an offensive tackle more than we needed Spiller.

The best way to compensate for a bad offensive line is to get good offensive linemen.

Nix's job is to get the players. Gailey's job is to coach them. Gailey at this point in time has who he has, and he has to compensate for their shortcomings.

[tennesseeboy]

Buddy...

yeah chan?

you think we can get a couple of those big ol fat boys to anchor our offensive line?

 

Nah chan...we gotta get this little waterbug you wanted...Spiller.....

 

 

Buddy?

 

Yeah Chan?

You think maybe we might get us one or two of those oversized veteran tackles available in free agency...?

Nah Chan..we're going to get a wild card special teams qb......

[DefenseWins]

Improving the offensive line didn't have to be a three year process. There have been two drafts and two free agency periods in addition to the possibility of trades. Using a tight end as a quasi tackle and failing to utilize a first round draft pick halfback because of lack of confidence in the o-line is not a way to build a team. With all due respect, we needed an offensive tackle more than we needed Spiller.

The best way to compensate for a bad offensive line is to get good offensive linemen.

 

 

AMEN..

[thewildrabbit]

I think Gailey's offense is predicated on not having to rely on an awesome O line. It's become clear in terms of the type of plays that we call. And, those plays also account for the weather in Buffalo.

 

I don't remember a play from this past game, or for the last few games last season, that is designed to take longer than 2 seconds to develop. Or, if it does, it develops with the intended ball carrier, RB or WR, with the ball already in his hands and he is moving. This changes the O line's job from holding their ground at the point of attack, to more of a moving down the field and hitting people on the run approach.

 

Conversely, I don't know if Gailey is simply shaping the offense based on what he has to work with, or, if he had the best O line in football, if he wouldn't be calling these type of plays anyway. Perhaps a little of both? I don't know if this is intentional and has to do with money, i,e, they don't want to expend resources on the O line, and would rather spend them on the D line, but it sure seems that way.

 

In all cases, although some posters swear by having a power offense in Buffalo(weather, intimidation, etc.), it seems we aren't headed in that direction. The main problem with this quick-play type of offense, and we saw a little of it in the last game, is that if a team drops into zone, it can cause some problems. If you aren't playing man to man, then misdirection doesn't work as well, in any sport, because a defensive zone means all defenders have their eyes on the ball, and not as much on their man.

 

The way to beat a zone, for this team, is to predict when they are going to be in zone, and then call a play that overloads(i.e. more people in the left flat than they have defenders) a part of the zone. This way, you can still get a quick play off, and in theory, you have automatic blockers ahead of wherever the ball goes. That's why we keep seeing all kinds of screens. The other way you beat a zone is with quickness/speed, as the defenders are playing "off" = giving up space in trade for time to react. If you can get to where they aren't, and gain that space before they can react, you win. Brad Smith showed that quite well this past game.

 

The theory seems to be that the O line will be more of a set of guys running around, than a wall to stand/run behind. We'll see.

This is probably why Gailey did have 6 winning seasons in his 6 years at GT as HC.... but then never beat the teams biggest rival in the Georgia Bulldogs-never won the ACC-never went to a BCS bowl, never won more then 9 games in a season and his teams never once finished in the top 25.

As OC of the Chiefs his offense at KC went 2-14 with the QB slinging it all over while almost ignoring the running game, sound familiar?

 

 

The mere fact that the Bills went after Clabo means they know they have trouble with the RT position or they wouldn't have made a strong pitch for the guy, that and also knowing Nix doesn't like to build thru free agency means big trouble.

 

Anyway, I'd be a whole lot more confidant in the offense if I knew that it was filled with athletic top young players rather then cast off waiver wire scrubs and late round maybes.

 

The difference between a below average player and a great player is one will step up his game in the 4th QTR and do what it takes to win the game....the only time the other steps up is to get his paycheck.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Harvey lives

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

If by your post you mean we may never call a pass play longer than 10 yards, you may be right.

[BearNorth]

Nix's job is to get the players. Gailey's job is to coach them. Gailey at this point in time has who he has, and he has to compensate for their shortcomings.

 

Yep & Buddy had a swing tackle who had started in the league, and would be a quality guy in the locker room, and guess What?"

 

"The Tennessee Titans have picked up some depth on their offensive line.

 

Free agent tackle Adam Terry has signed with the Titans, PFT has confirmed. His huge body and long hair and beard have already been spotted on the Titans’ practice field.

 

The 6-foot-8, 335-pound Terry was a second-round pick of the Ravens in 2005 and was an occasional starter from 2006 to 2008. He missed the entire 2009 season and played just two games for the Chargers in 2010."

 

 

Good Job Buddy the guy lives in Rochester.

 

Front Office = Inept

[Bill from NYC]

If this style of offense works, why would he change it? Just so we can say we have a good O line?

 

Why should we put resources into that, and not into say, a star QB? If anything, I want to trade up and get the best QB we can get, let him learn under Fitz, and take the time to build the line so that when said rookie is ready, so is the line.

 

No to the bolded. You change it to offer Fitz (or the new qb that you call for) protection. And you do it to offer a small, nifty little #9 draft selection room to run.

 

Once again, I concede that the game has changed. It's more of a passing game. I still make the case that the Bills have a couple of games per year (home and road) when passing is often not the greatest option.

 

When the Bills had a great defense (Bruce, Bryce, Big Ted, etc.) they couldn't win because they were weak up front on offense. Until they change this it will be hard for them to be a playoff team, especially in this tough, strong division.

[Chandler#81]

No to the bolded. You change it to offer Fitz (or the new qb that you call for) protection. And you do it to offer a small, nifty little #9 draft selection room to run.

 

Once again, I concede that the game has changed. It's more of a passing game. I still make the case that the Bills have a couple of games per year (home and road) when passing is often not the greatest option.

 

When the Bills had a great defense (Bruce, Bryce, Big Ted, etc.) they couldn't win because they were weak up front on offense. Until they change this it will be hard for them to be a playoff team, especially in this tough, strong division.

 

I don't know that to be so anymore, Bill. Neither the Packers or Steelers had great OL's and they just played in the 2nd best SB I've ever seen (SBXXV:thumbsup: ). Certainly, I've been raised on the premise you speak to, but we've seen OL we all ran out of town here, go on to good careers afterwards. I think it IS more to what others are saying, that a great play deviser (is that a word?) minimizes the need for great OLinemen. The league's been 3-5 step droppin' since Montana -just about the last time there was any real consensus All-World OL.

 

JMO.

[Armchair GM]

2 points:

1 - Last year was the first year of installing an offense...

2 - Pre-season play calling is very vanilla so as to rate the players on physicality & ability to compete @ this level. Keeping it simple eliminates mental errors.

Basically, i'm saying your evaluation is premature and a bit ignorant (not in an insulting way, just uninformed as of yet).

Bottom line...the OLine will be a thorn in our side this year unless they really pull it together and gel as a cohesive unit.

[thewildrabbit]

I don't know that to be so anymore, Bill. Neither the Packers or Steelers had great OL's and they just played in the 2nd best SB I've ever seen (SBXXV:thumbsup: ). Certainly, I've been raised on the premise you speak to, but we've seen OL we all ran out of town here, go on to good careers afterwards. I think it IS more to what others are saying, that a great play deviser (is that a word?) minimizes the need for great OLinemen. The league's been 3-5 step droppin' since Montana -just about the last time there was any real consensus All-World OL.

 

JMO.

IMO both the Steelers and Packers O lines get a bad rap with Aaron Rodgers and Big Ben because both those QB's tend to hold onto the ball longer while waiting for the receivers to get open. Thus the stats for QB pressures and sacks is higher then it should be. So everyone assumes the lines are not very good. While not stacked with pro bowlers on their lines, both those teams had some very experienced veteran players all over the lines. Both those teams also have very elite QB's, defenses and receiver corps.

 

Neither of those two SB teams had other teams cast offs picked up from the waiver wire or as many players with little veteran experience as Buffalo has had the last few years. The Buffalo Bills have been a revolving door at every position on the line for the last decade, 35+ different O linemen, and 10+ different QB's.

 

 

Claybo would have been a tremendous upgrade at RT for the Bills on so many levels. A starting RT good enough to go to the PB as an alternate. He would have brought leadership and veteran experience and shown those young Bills players what it takes to be a good linemen

 

I don't care what scheme the Bills utilize, they will never be a playoff team until they address they other 3 spots on the line and find a good tight end. Bell can't stay healthy, the center has back problems and the RT's just don't cut it. Dunno why its gonna take 3 years to get this done...are 3 positions that difficult to fill?

[Chandler#81]

IMO both the Steelers and Packers O lines get a bad rap with Aaron Rodgers and Big Ben because both those QB's tend to hold onto the ball longer while waiting for the receivers to get open. Thus the stats for QB pressures and sacks is higher then it should be. So everyone assumes the lines are not very good. While not stacked with pro bowlers on their lines, both those teams had some very experienced veteran players all over the lines. Both those teams also have very elite QB's, defenses and receiver corps.

 

Neither of those two SB teams had other teams cast offs picked up from the waiver wire or as many players with little veteran experience as Buffalo has had the last few years. The Buffalo Bills have been a revolving door at every position on the line for the last decade, 35+ different O linemen, and 10+ different QB's.

 

 

 

Well, maybe except for this ex-Bill whippin' boy starter..

 

http://www.steelers.com/team/roster/Jonathan-Scott/0d242b24-ef4d-49d3-90d1-dfe6c1f6c863