apuszczalowski Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 You know what else Cat? Nix could've just done NOTHING and it would have been better. Soon after he took over, Nix chose not to re-sign Richie Incognito or Jonathan Scott. Neither are All Pros, but both are starters. And yet here we have Nix complaining about his line depth. Think one or both of those players would help right now? Incognito was a RFA for chrissakes, and Nix chose to let him walk. So let me sum it up for you: since taking over, Nix jettisoned 2 NFL-caliber offensive linemen. He's drafted 3 offensive linemen in 18 picks, and two of them can't play. He's signed no one of import at the position. The problem with the line is not a lack of time. It's lack of priority, lack effort, or lack of ability, by Buddy Nix. the only one of those players Bills fans wanted back was Richie, because he had a bad attitude and was none for being dirty, which is what fans want, Jonathan Scott was a starter because a team with an o-line almost as bad as Buffalo had a huge amount of injuries and little options Its funny how we have all been convinced by some that the only way to be a good team is to build a great o-line, yet the 2 teams that played in the Super bowl had o-lines that were below the league average (GB 19th, Pittsburgh 25th, Buffalo was 14th) acocrding to this from NFL.com http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=TM&offensiveStatisticCategory=OFFENSIVE_LINE&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&season=2010&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=true&Submit=Go
Coach Tuesday Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 the only one of those players Bills fans wanted back was Richie, because he had a bad attitude and was none for being dirty, which is what fans want, Jonathan Scott was a starter because a team with an o-line almost as bad as Buffalo had a huge amount of injuries and little options Its funny how we have all been convinced by some that the only way to be a good team is to build a great o-line, yet the 2 teams that played in the Super bowl had o-lines that were below the league average (GB 19th, Pittsburgh 25th, Buffalo was 14th) acocrding to this from NFL.com http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=TM&offensiveStatisticCategory=OFFENSIVE_LINE&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&season=2010&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=true&Submit=Go If you want to go out on a limb and stake out the position that the Bills don't need major upgrades along their line in order to be successful, fine. That's bold of you. By the way, Nix himself is now saying he's concerned about the line...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 You can't be serious. Honestly? You think a team that has a two year playoff drought has the same path to rebuilding as a team with an 11 year playoff drought? Really? Especially considering it's been 11 years of rebuild, implode, rebuild, implode, rebuild, implode? Especially when we've had ONE winning season over those 11 years? You really think that it's even remotely comparable to missing the playoffs for two years then getting back on track? Damn, bro. If you hit rock bottom and have to implode and rebuild, why does it matter whether it was 10 years ago or 4 years ago? Based on your reasoning, we had a winning team and were only a gimme win away (against back-up Steelers in 2004) to making the playoffs. So, it's only been 7 years since we've been in the thick of things. Or, in 2007, we were in the playoff hunt right up until the end and finished with a respectable 7 wins, so maybe it's only been 4 years ago since we've been good. Why does that matter? I would argue that we hit rock bottom after the 2009 Bills season, and maybe our needs were more glaring, but there's no reason for us to accept that it will take the magical 3 years to do so. I don't understand why people buy the line that rebuilding takes 3 years (or 5 years). This isn't the old days when you had dynasty teams. Almost every team has glaring weaknesses, and has to figure out a way to mitigate those weaknesses with short-term or creative solutions. This actually helps rebuilding teams. You don't have to be great at every position to win in the NFL anymore.
The Big Cat Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 If you hit rock bottom and have to implode and rebuild, why does it matter whether it was 10 years ago or 4 years ago? Based on your reasoning, we had a winning team and were only a gimme win away (against back-up Steelers in 2004) to making the playoffs. So, it's only been 7 years since we've been in the thick of things. Or, in 2007, we were in the playoff hunt right up until the end and finished with a respectable 7 wins, so maybe it's only been 4 years ago since we've been good. Why does that matter? I would argue that we hit rock bottom after the 2009 Bills season, and maybe our needs were more glaring, but there's no reason for us to accept that it will take the magical 3 years to do so. I don't understand why people buy the line that rebuilding takes 3 years (or 5 years). This isn't the old days when you had dynasty teams. Almost every team has glaring weaknesses, and has to figure out a way to mitigate those weaknesses with short-term or creative solutions. This actually helps rebuilding teams. You don't have to be great at every position to win in the NFL anymore. You're cute when you're struggling to keep your neck above water... Look, man. I'm finished here. I never said it takes 3 years. And so far it hasn't (under this regime). If that's the premise for your argument, then this is stupid.
jahnyc Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 This rebuilding process, if successful, will take a long time because they are not particlarly active in free agency and there are a lot of holes to fill (some of them created recently). In the last year, the Bills have waived, traded or not re-signed Whitner (high first), McCargo (first), Evans (first), Lynch (first), Maybin (high first), Hardy (second), Poz (second), Chris Ellis (third), Youboty (third) and Edwards (third). Early picks are typically the nucleus for a successful team. In this regard, the Bills have failed miserably, andy they are paying for it now.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 You're cute when you're struggling to keep your neck above water... Look, man. I'm finished here. I never said it takes 3 years. And so far it hasn't (under this regime). If that's the premise for your argument, then this is stupid. Haha; fair enough. I can't remember what the original point of contention was. But I know my original point was that there is nothing stopping us from getting some vets in here and trying--just trying-- to fix the oline now rather than wait for next year's draft. Nix sounds like his hands are tied; they are not.
spartacus Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 The Bills had several problems going into the draft and they decided to fix the defense first. They tried to sign Clabo but it's likely he was just using the Bills to drive up his price. So why haven't we brought in other O-linemen? I wonder if there is lingering distrust over the last couple of free agent O-line signings? Green, Walker and Dockery all flopped, and all cost big money. Could it be Ralph is blocking any more free agent pickups? "Could it be Ralph is blocking any more free agent pickups?" For 18 years since Polian left, someone in Ralph's Inner Circle (Jerk) has aggressively prevented the addition of any serious talent to the OL, especially at the OT positions. Spending ONE premium pick on an OT in 18 years is not just an aberration, but a downright vendetta. not expecting that to change anytime soon.
BuffaloBillsMagic1 Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 "Could it be Ralph is blocking any more free agent pickups?" For 18 years since Polian left, someone in Ralph's Inner Circle (Jerk) has aggressively prevented the addition of any serious talent to the OL, especially at the OT positions. Spending ONE premium pick on an OT in 18 years is not just an aberration, but a downright vendetta. not expecting that to change anytime soon. But we have 15 KO returners when the NFL is pushing KO returns out the back door.
BobbyC81 Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 169 rush yards per game. That's not an "area" of our team that needed to be "addressed." That was a fundamental FAILURE that needed completely RE-HAULED. And such an improvement in the 1st preseason game. They gave up "only" 164 yards!!
Orton's Arm Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 If you hit rock bottom and have to implode and rebuild, why does it matter whether it was 10 years ago or 4 years ago? Based on your reasoning, we had a winning team and were only a gimme win away (against back-up Steelers in 2004) to making the playoffs. So, it's only been 7 years since we've been in the thick of things. Or, in 2007, we were in the playoff hunt right up until the end and finished with a respectable 7 wins, so maybe it's only been 4 years ago since we've been good. Why does that matter? I would argue that we hit rock bottom after the 2009 Bills season, and maybe our needs were more glaring, but there's no reason for us to accept that it will take the magical 3 years to do so. I don't understand why people buy the line that rebuilding takes 3 years (or 5 years). This isn't the old days when you had dynasty teams. Almost every team has glaring weaknesses, and has to figure out a way to mitigate those weaknesses with short-term or creative solutions. This actually helps rebuilding teams. You don't have to be great at every position to win in the NFL anymore. I would argue that when Atlanta "bottomed out" as you put it, there was considerably more talent on the roster than their poor record indicated. But they were being held back by very serious problems at the quarterback position. Problems there can kill your record, no matter how good you are elsewhere. Even the Ravens of 2000 went 2-3 during that five game stretch when their offense failed to score a touchdown. That lack of touchdowns was due to Tony Banks stinking, and Trent Dilfer not playing his best when he first assumed the role of starter. If even a team with as much talent as the Ravens of 2000 can have a losing record when their quarterback play is bad enough, surely this is also true of the Falcons. Joey Harrington's poor play meant that whatever talent the Falcons had at other positions would not result in very many wins. Fixing the problem at QB allowed the true impact of the Falcons' strength in other areas to be felt. From a rebuilding standpoint, a lousy record with lots of talent at other positions and a big gaping hole at QB is not the same thing as an equally lousy record for a team with little young talent anywhere. The Dolphins' playoff year was based on several factors: The Patriots had an off year that year. Lucky breaks. Their season felt a lot like Jauron's one good season with Chicago. A gimmicky wildcat offense. Chad Pennington's very solid play at the quarterback position. Nothing on that list proved sustainable. After the Dolphins' one good year, the Patriots got back on track, the lucky breaks and bounces tapered off, defenses got better at dealing with the wildcat, and Chad Pennington soon became injured, and then retired. After Jauron's one good season in Chicago, his team was obliterated in the first playoff game it played. The same thing happened to that Dolphins team in their playoff game. Both teams were exposed not merely as inferior to their opponents, but as not even in the same category as the teams they faced. Neither team made the playoffs the next year. A season like that isn't "rebuilding," it's a flash in the pan.
BillsWatch Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 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?" Please Bills if you have position in media relations which pays next to nothing and requires you to wear a long pointy hat without style (not a wizard hat) please consider this an application for job with application offering to pay his own salary; consider press advantages to being able saying you not only hire the mentally disabled but mentally lacking.
Orton's Arm Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 the only one of those players Bills fans wanted back was Richie, because he had a bad attitude and was none for being dirty, which is what fans want, Jonathan Scott was a starter because a team with an o-line almost as bad as Buffalo had a huge amount of injuries and little options Its funny how we have all been convinced by some that the only way to be a good team is to build a great o-line, yet the 2 teams that played in the Super bowl had o-lines that were below the league average (GB 19th, Pittsburgh 25th, Buffalo was 14th) acocrding to this from NFL.com http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=TM&offensiveStatisticCategory=OFFENSIVE_LINE&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&season=2010&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=true&Submit=Go In response to your point about OLs, I'd argue several things: First, that it's very rare to see a complete team in today's NFL. Just about every team is going to have its share of holes, including this year's Super Bowl participants. In the case of those two teams, some of the holes happened to be on the OL. Second, I'd argue that both Green Bay and Pittsburgh have quarterbacks who are excellent at masking the flaws of a bad OL. Aaron Rodgers gets the ball out very quickly, and is elusive. Ben Roethlisberger is mobile, and is very tough for defenders to haul down because of his sheer size and strength. Both players are among the very best in the league at masking the flaws of a bad OL. They're both significantly better at that aspect of the game than (for example) Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. The Bills obviously need a franchise QB. But most franchise QBs require significantly more pass protection than do Rodgers or Manning. A franchise QB + good pass protection is a very potent combination, which is why it's so important to build a good OL.
John from Riverside Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 And such an improvement in the 1st preseason game. They gave up "only" 164 yards!! Im going to give you credit and believe you are not foolish enough to judge it by that. How many yards did the starting offense of the Bears have against the starting defense of the Bills? Answer....not many
San-O Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 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?!?!? Well, maybe he was taking another nap?!?
Bob in STL Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 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?!?!? It is stories ike this that make me concerned about Nix as a GM. I have no doubt he is an excellent scout and can help us to draft better players than we have in a long time. It is all the other things a GM does that concern me. So far I do not see him using all avenues to imorove the product on the field.
Recommended Posts