Beerball Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Quick follow up: May be someone should call Nix and tell him where this stable of available upgrades exists. I'd be curious as to its whereabouts also. As I said below, he's had 2 drafts and 2 off seasons. All we have to show for that are low level picks, waiver claims and street FAs. Do you really think that's the way to build an O-line?
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 They are also either really old or have some serious injury concerns, or grossly overweight w/ attitude issues. How are these guys going to "dramatically improve the o-line this year" from IR? Taking a flyer on these guys would also require the bills to have to cut someone from the roster that they want to look at. They are not building for this year, they are building for the future. They don't want to have one good year and then have to re-build half the team again. They want a team thats going to have a solid core that can maintain success over a long span. This unfortunatly takes some time and patience, which bills fans don't have. 1) We would have more patience if the team had shown some improvement over the last decade. But that's besides the point. No good team in today's NFL still operates under the "three-year rebuild" model. You better be able to re-build in one off-season, because other teams can. 2) I agree that all of the guys I mentioned have question marks (they were only guys I thought of off the top of my head). But you're telling me you wouldn't take any of them over Wang, Wrotto, or Howard?
The Big Cat Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 This team's achilles heel is the O-line. Was this your evaluation at season's end last year? You think it trumped our defensive woes?
Beerball Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Was this your evaluation at season's end last year? You think it trumped our defensive woes? Both were in need of help, defense moreso. Fitzy masked the O-line needs that Edwards made look worse than they were. Look at the past 2 drafts, off seasons and the 2010 season. Are you happy with the attention that has been paid to the O-line?
levy1 Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 My link "...Nix expressed confidence in the Bills starting five linemen, but wasn't sure whether he'll have to wait until the off-season to add proven depth..." It took him 3 weeks into camp to just now realize this?!?!? Just because it is the first time he said it, doesn't mean it is the first time he thought it.
jahnyc Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 I don't understand why fixing the defense and the o-line are mutually exclusive. In the last two years, many teams have found starting caliber offensive linemem in the draft, including in later rounds. If the Bills are going to rely primarily on the draft to rebuild this team, then Nix et al. need to hit on most picks to have success. For the o-line, last year's draft brought us Wang, who seems overmatched, even as a back-up. I have heard nothing about Hairston during training camp so far. Selecting one offensive lineman in the draft for each of the last two years is not going to turnaround the o-line (both in terms of depth and starters).
Mark Vader Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 As I said below, he's had 2 drafts and 2 off seasons. All we have to show for that are low level picks, waiver claims and street FAs. Do you really think that's the way to build an O-line? No it is not the way to build an O-Line. However, you have to look at the state of the team and the direction that Nix/Gailey wanted to go with the Bills. Let's go back to 2010: They drafted Spiller in the first round and that was the sign that they were finished with Marshawn Lynch. While Spiller did not live up to the hype that doesn't mean he will not improve this year. It was a best player available pick to make, but it made sense. Then they drafted Carrington, Troup, Moats & Batten, players that would fit into the new 3-4 scheme that was being implemented. They had to address this area because it was a complete upheaval of the defense. This draft was being used as a future model for the defense, which was more of a need than the O-Line was. Moving on to this year's draft, the defense still needed fixing, which is not a surprise because not all the elements were there for a 3-4 scheme, and they still needed more young players to fill those needs. Yes, the O-Line needs fixing as well, but the defense was so putrid last year, that it's needs trumped the offensive needs. Therefore drafting players like Dareus, Williams & Sheppard were good moves. It's obvious the Bills braintrust feels that the O-Line is adequate and can get the job done, for now. I believe that too. The big problem for the O-Line is depth. Still I understand that solidifying the defense was more imperative than working on the O-Line. I wish they could work on both sides getting fixed, but that's how it goes. These things take time, and I fully believe that when the 2012 draft comes around, it will be a primarily offensive draft.
The Big Cat Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Both were in need of help, defense moreso. Fitzy masked the O-line needs that Edwards made look worse than they were. Look at the past 2 drafts, off seasons and the 2010 season. Are you happy with the attention that has been paid to the O-line? I come back to what I've been saying all along: if the resources were out there to heed the kind of attention that would satisfy me, then I'd say they have some splaining to do. I AM happy with the defense that's been paid to the defense. And I DO think that's what was needed, given the scheme switch and utter lack of success the unit has had.
mattsox Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) The whole entire line with the possible exception of Wood at center is a mess. Take away Bad Santa and you still have probably the worst offensive line in football, for yet another year. Agreed. I thought Levitre Was a good player. Other than Wood and him, there is no OL. We have no Starting Caliber LT,RT or RG. And The GM Just figured this out? Time to get to work there Ol' Buddy. Edited August 17, 2011 by mattsox
PromoTheRobot Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Chan is currently working on an offensive formation with 1 center, 1 QB and 9 WRs. Problem solved. PTR
CodeMonkey Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Chan is currently working on an offensive formation with 1 center, 1 QB and 9 WRs. Problem solved. PTR That already exists ... its called sandlot football.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 No it is not the way to build an O-Line. However, you have to look at the state of the team and the direction that Nix/Gailey wanted to go with the Bills. Let's go back to 2010: They drafted Spiller in the first round and that was the sign that they were finished with Marshawn Lynch. While Spiller did not live up to the hype that doesn't mean he will not improve this year. It was a best player available pick to make, but it made sense. Then they drafted Carrington, Troup, Moats & Batten, players that would fit into the new 3-4 scheme that was being implemented. They had to address this area because it was a complete upheaval of the defense. This draft was being used as a future model for the defense, which was more of a need than the O-Line was. Moving on to this year's draft, the defense still needed fixing, which is not a surprise because not all the elements were there for a 3-4 scheme, and they still needed more young players to fill those needs. Yes, the O-Line needs fixing as well, but the defense was so putrid last year, that it's needs trumped the offensive needs. Therefore drafting players like Dareus, Williams & Sheppard were good moves. It's obvious the Bills braintrust feels that the O-Line is adequate and can get the job done, for now. I believe that too. The big problem for the O-Line is depth. Still I understand that solidifying the defense was more imperative than working on the O-Line. I wish they could work on both sides getting fixed, but that's how it goes. These things take time, and I fully believe that when the 2012 draft comes around, it will be a primarily offensive draft. Really good post, but I would add one thing I feel is very important not to overlook. Even though it was obvious that Nix and Gailey wanted to go defense in this 2011 draft, and two of the top three picks in the 2010 draft were defense to try to fit the new 3-4 they wanted to move into, I would bet everything they also were looking at the offensive line, and most every other position. They don't have any control over who is left on the board. When Spiller, for example, was chosen, there is no way they went into that pick saying we have to get a speedy running back. They just knew the team lacked speed and playmakers, like we did. If there WAS a really good LT prospect on the board at that time, and maybe even RT, they might have taken him. But there wasn't. Buluga, the best available at the time, was far down on their board. They thought to themselves, like all guys making selections do, is player A going to help us more than player B in the short term, mid term and long term. Most #11 picks are considered more for long term because of the money. That doesn't mean they aren't expected to play right away, only that it's not just a which position do we need help the most in. The same thing happened with Troupe and Carrington. And I guarantee the same thing happened with A Williams and Kelvin Sheppard. Not that there wasn't any possible OT selections at a high #2 pick, but there weren't any guys left where they thought, wow, this OT prospect is a much better player than A Williams a CB prospect, also at a position of need. each pick is made that way. You don't take a guy you have rated way later than another player at a position of need. You have those guys for at least four years. Granted, in two years of top three picks, there were certainly OTs we could have drafted. But I again would bet anything that OT was very seriously considered by Gailey and Nix and Whaley and the scouts, and each time they made the choice of lets go with the better rated player at a similar position of need. They don't just ignore positions that everyone who follows football know are important.
The Big Cat Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 That already exists ... its called sandlot football. And it's awesome.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 I wish we would have looked at Gaither too, just to see if he was healthy enough to play. He says he is. But the Chiefs signed him for one year at the veteran minimum of $680,000 or whatever it is. Obviously, teams did not think he was healthy enough. I wish would would have taken a flyer on him, but again, Gailey and Nix are not looking for under-achievers or attitude problems as they try to retool this team into a winner.
CodeMonkey Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Really good post, but I would add one thing I feel is very important not to overlook. Even though it was obvious that Nix and Gailey wanted to go defense in this 2011 draft, and two of the top three picks in the 2010 draft were defense to try to fit the new 3-4 they wanted to move into, I would bet everything they also were looking at the offensive line, and most every other position. They don't have any control over who is left on the board. When Spiller, for example, was chosen, there is no way they went into that pick saying we have to get a speedy running back. They just knew the team lacked speed and playmakers, like we did. If there WAS a really good LT prospect on the board at that time, and maybe even RT, they might have taken him. But there wasn't. Buluga, the best available at the time, was far down on their board. They thought to themselves, like all guys making selections do, is player A going to help us more than player B in the short term, mid term and long term. Most #11 picks are considered more for long term because of the money. That doesn't mean they aren't expected to play right away, only that it's not just a which position do we need help the most in. The same thing happened with Troupe and Carrington. And I guarantee the same thing happened with A Williams and Kelvin Sheppard. Not that there wasn't any possible OT selections at a high #2 pick, but there weren't any guys left where they thought, wow, this OT prospect is a much better player than A Williams a CB prospect, also at a position of need. each pick is made that way. You don't take a guy you have rated way later than another player at a position of need. You have those guys for at least four years. Granted, in two years of top three picks, there were certainly OTs we could have drafted. But I again would bet anything that OT was very seriously considered by Gailey and Nix and Whaley and the scouts, and each time they made the choice of lets go with the better rated player at a similar position of need. They don't just ignore positions that everyone who follows football know are important. Your post was very well thought out and expressed as well. I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you both on the Spiller thing though. I believe both Nix and Gailey believed the stuff they were saying about Spiller being the kind of explosive player that makes an entire offensive line better and that is a major reason they picked Spiller so high. And it was painfully apparent last season that was not the case by a damn site, and so far anyway I see no indication of that changing this year. I agree with everything else the both of you said and I am by no means calling him a bust at this point, but even if Spiller somehow magically evolves to even a good running back within the next few years he was a luxury pick that the Bills should not have made in my opinion.
ganesh Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 I don't understand; I thought they liked the guys they had playing offensive line and thought that they were better than most of us out here thought they were. EDIT: I love how they went after Atlanta's RT and then after that...they were done. "Oh well, we tried." It is unlikely, but I would love it if someone from the organization came out and said, "Look, we knew we had a poor Oline, but when FA hit we had an extra 20 plus million dollars and sat on our f****** hands and now we are paying for it and you are going to suffer because of it as fans. So what's the big deal?" It is one thing to criticize the Bills blindly, but it is another when you cannot come up the list of other candidates that they could have gone after...... Flozelle Adams and Max Starks have not been re-signed by their own teams, the steelers who themselves have a very weak line.....Langston Walker is available, if you want to throw another 25 Million at him...The Truth is that teams don't let go of their starting OTs if they are any good, except for the Bills who were twisted around by Jason Peters on his way to Philadelphia. The RT tackle from Pittsburgh would have been a good fit, but he really wanted to use all other teams to gauge his market and then went to the Steelers for a counter offer and bingo...they gave him the offer because he is a good RT and they didn't want to let him go. The Bills have failed to address the Tackle position at the top of the Draft and also have not had luck with their late round picks. I am more worried about their depth than their starters.
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 But I also don't think we can just bring in any vet just because he may be a better short term back up than Wang, or possibly better than Erik Pears (because even if they were better before, they are available now for a reason, usually a good one, and a health one). We need to FIX the line, which means for good. Not patch it. The guys they bring in better be able to play for 3-4 years, not 1-2. They cannot be just patchwork guys that take the place of all the developing guys, because then we are stuck for the next 10 years doing the same thing. This part I'm not sure I agree. I don't see why we can't sign a stopgap for one season until we get more draft picks this April, when we seek the long-term answer.
The Big Cat Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 I wish we would have looked at Gaither too, just to see if he was healthy enough to play. He says he is. But the Chiefs signed him for one year at the veteran minimum of $680,000 or whatever it is. Obviously, teams did not think he was healthy enough. I wish would would have taken a flyer on him, but again, Gailey and Nix are not looking for under-achievers or attitude problems as they try to retool this team into a winner. Apparently roster space (regardless of position) is at a high enough premium that it's not even worth a flyer at veteran minimum. I can actually buy that...
ganesh Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Everybody has offensive line problems. Baltimore, Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Indy... The advantage the Bills have is LOTS of money under the cap. The teams with identified weaknesses on the line are really up against the cap now. If the Bills *want* to do something, they have the flexibility to do it. Again...please can you line up those OTs that are out on the street that can come and make this team significantly better. I don't want one crap replaced by another crap.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Your post was very well thought out and expressed as well. I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you both on the Spiller thing though. I believe both Nix and Gailey believed the stuff they were saying about Spiller being the kind of explosive player that makes an entire offensive line better and that is a major reason they picked Spiller so high. And it was painfully apparent last season that was not the case by a damn site, and so far anyway I see no indication of that changing this year. I agree with everything else the both of you said and I am by no means calling him a bust at this point, but even if Spiller somehow magically evolves to even a good running back within the next few years he was a luxury pick that the Bills should not have made in my opinion. I know they wanted Spiller and I think they targeted him. I think they both love him and still think he is going to be great. The point is, Trent Williams and Russell Okung were the consensus top two OTs in the draft. The Bills liked Demetrius Bell as a prospect. When they looked at who was going to be available at that pick, Spiller was their highest rated player (whether you or me or anyone agrees with that ranking). The next highest rated linemen after Okung and Williams was Anthony Davis (I forgot about him in my earlier post) and Bulaga. Both of them had question marks on them and were not as highly regarded at OT as Spiller was at RB. I am saying that IF Okung or Williams would have been surprisingly available when the Bills drafted, not only would Nix and Gailey have strongly considered either one, they may have indeed drafted one ahead of Spiller. I'm not sure, either way, whether they had Spiller rated higher than those two. It was probably very close, and it's possible they had Spiller rated higher.
Recommended Posts