PDaDdy Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 This debate has raged on at times regarding the o-line or Fitz being the reason for the low sack totals. All would agree it's a combination of both. I believe that the teams success has had more to do with scheme, Fitz's quick decision making and getting rid of the ball. Another point also made by Levitre is that Fitz is really good at calling out the protections and getting guys in the right place. Here is a nice little article with comments from the actual players regarding their low sack totals. The lines developing chemistry and second year in the system are important factors but it would seem to me to indicate that Fitz and Gailey's scheme are more important than the actual talent level on the line when it comes to low sacks. http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl/article688857.ece A stat I compiled from NFL.com regards sacks per hit on QB. Sacks of course don't tell the whole story on QB pressure and number of hits and pressures tell more of the story. The stat says nothing more than what the numbers say so you can draw your own conclusions. The odd thing that shook out of these stats is that Buffalo is tied for 1st in the league with 21 sacks but is 31st in the league in hits per sack at 3.1. In other words for every sack Fitz takes he is actually hit 3.1 times. What this stat says to me? Fitz is good at getting rid of the ball just before he is taken down. It also says to me that Fitz experiences considerably more "hits" and likely pressures despite the low sack total. Again draw your own conclusion. Team Sacks Hits H/S 1 Minnesota Vikings 47 73 1.6 2 Arizona Cardinals 52 83 1.6 3 Denver Broncos 39 64 1.6 4 Green Bay Packers 38 64 1.7 5 Jacksonville Jaguars 41 72 1.8 6 New York Jets 38 67 1.8 7 San Diego Chargers 31 56 1.8 8 Chicago Bears 42 76 1.8 9 Miami Dolphins 51 93 1.8 10 San Francisco 49ers 41 75 1.8 11 Carolina Panthers 33 61 1.8 12 Pittsburgh Steelers 40 74 1.9 13 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 30 59 2.0 14 St. Louis Rams 52 110 2.1 15 New Orleans Saints 24 51 2.1 16 Houston Texans 30 64 2.1 17 Cleveland Browns 37 80 2.2 18 Kansas City Chiefs 33 72 2.2 19 Detroit Lions 34 76 2.2 20 Dallas Cowboys 33 74 2.2 21 Indianapolis Colts 32 72 2.3 22 Philadelphia Eagles 30 70 2.3 23 Seattle Seahawks 45 105 2.3 24 Baltimore Ravens 32 76 2.4 25 New England Patriots 28 67 2.4 26 Cincinnati Bengals 24 58 2.4 27 Tennessee Titans 21 51 2.4 28 Oakland Raiders 25 63 2.5 29 New York Giants 26 66 2.5 30 Washington Redskins 40 107 2.7 31 Buffalo Bills 21 65 3.1 32 Atlanta Falcons 26 83 3.2
bills1960 Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 It's definitely both. It can't be a coincidence that the sacks went down drastically last year when Fitz stepped in week 3. He gets the ball out quick. But credit has to be given to the job Joe D'Alessandris has done as O-Line coach and the performances given by Hairston, Pears and Urbik from week 1. It also helps that there is undeniable depth and versatility on our line as well. Rinehart has stepped in a played on a starting level, Urbik moved to center and did a bang up job. Levitre had to learn 3 different positions. I think it's safe to say that after years of ineptitude the Bills finally have an offensive line that doesn't need drastic change going into the offseason.
PromoTheRobot Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Gotta give an atta-good'ol-boy to Buddy Nix. Pears, Urbick and Reinhardt were street FA picks ups last season, were thy not? PTR
Bob in STL Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Gotta give an atta-good'ol-boy to Buddy Nix. Pears, Urbick and Reinhardt were street FA picks ups last season, were thy not? PTR I will give Nix his atta-boy and then I will give the OL coach his atta-boy and then I will give most credit to Fitz. He makes the reads and get the ball out. Bledsoe, Losman, Trent, would all be getting sacked with this line.
opfball91 Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 You don't have low sack totals and great rushing production without a solid offensive line. Credit goes to both sides.
PDaDdy Posted December 30, 2011 Author Posted December 30, 2011 As stated credit obviously has to go to both but I think it has become more apparent to me that other than Woods and Levitre our offensive linemen are system guys so to speak. I hate the comparison but it is the excuse that all the Maybin haters have been using regarding his performance. They claim that Maybin only puts up the number he is because of the Jets system and take away credit from the player. In the case of our offensive line I think that there is merit to that line of reasoning. The players own testimonials seem to indicate that the QB is a very large factor in their performance. The system is designed to get rid of the ball quick. Fitz makes the quick decisions and does get the ball out quickly. On top of that as any smart QB should, Fitz gets the protections called out right and makes the necessary changes to help the o-lineman do their job and keep him on his feet and open holes. Obviously the lineman have to execute but they seem to be very reliant on Fitz's play and his leadership for the success they have. As another poster stated I also believe that if JP Losman, Trent Edwards or a number of other guys were playing behind that line in a different system the whole thing would look a LOT different and the line would give up sacks and negatively impact the run game. Does anyone know where you can find stats on QB pressures given up by the o-line? Sacks and hits are probably the only things that you can put a solid number on but I was wondering if there is a site somewhere that tracks pressures?
Turbosrrgood Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 It's a combination of both, plus the offensive scheme IMO. I will admit that I was wrong about some members of the o-line in the pre-season (Mainly Pears and Urbik). The O-line has been more or less solid, especially when you consider all of the injuries. However the good pocket awareness of Fitz, combined with Gailey doing a good job of coaching with "what he has", should get a lot of the credit as well.
H2o Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 It's definitely both. It can't be a coincidence that the sacks went down drastically last year when Fitz stepped in week 3. He gets the ball out quick. But credit has to be given to the job Joe D'Alessandris has done as O-Line coach and the performances given by Hairston, Pears and Urbik from week 1. It also helps that there is undeniable depth and versatility on our line as well. Rinehart has stepped in a played on a starting level, Urbik moved to center and did a bang up job. Levitre had to learn 3 different positions. I think it's safe to say that after years of ineptitude the Bills finally have an offensive line that doesn't need drastic change going into the offseason.
thewildrabbit Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) Another reason for the low amount of sacks is that the Bills don't have a deep passing game, kinda the reason Lee Evans wasn't very valuable in Gaileys offense. What made JP Losman & Trent Edwards look so inept so often is that Schonert would call for 5-7 step drop back passes in that "Mike Martz" scheme the Bills ran under Jauron, when they clearly weren't allowed the time to throw deep by the O lines. So it is a combination of Fitz and scheme that have resulted in so few sacks, this O line still stinks in my view. Besides this passing offense in being so one dimensional is the reason for their failure to keep moving the ball in every game all year There was an article made by ESPN this year (before Wood going on IR) which stated the Bills were the second worst in the NFL in allowing pressure after 3 seconds, so even with that short passing game Fitz still is under a ton of pressure all the time. ""The team that takes the shortest amount of time to throw is the Buffalo Bills Fitzpatrick, also a top-10 quarterback according to Total QBR, has to get the ball out so quickly because Buffalo's offensive line is the second-worst in the league at allowing pass pressure within three seconds in the pocket. "" QB http://forums.twobil...ine-in-the-nfl/ BTW, The ineptitude is still there, its just being masked by a good QB and the scheme....one of the reasons this team only won 6 games...and the offense has dropped to pathetic. Don't forget in that 40 point win the offense only scored 6pts...by the RB Edited December 30, 2011 by Fear the Beard
PDaDdy Posted December 30, 2011 Author Posted December 30, 2011 Another reason for the low amount of sacks is that the Bills don't have a deep passing game, kinda the reason Lee Evans wasn't very valuable in Gaileys offense. What made JP Losman & Trent Edwards look so inept so often is that Schonert would call for 5-7 step drop back passes in that "Mike Martz" scheme the Bills ran under Jauron, when they clearly weren't allowed the time to throw deep by the O lines. So it is a combination of Fitz and scheme that have resulted in so few sacks, this O line still stinks in my view. Besides this passing offense in being so one dimensional is the reason for their failure to keep moving the ball in every game all year There was an article made by ESPN this year (before Wood going on IR) which stated the Bills were the second worst in the NFL in allowing pressure after 3 seconds, so even with that short passing game Fitz still is under a ton of pressure all the time. ""The team that takes the shortest amount of time to throw is the Buffalo Bills Fitzpatrick, also a top-10 quarterback according to Total QBR, has to get the ball out so quickly because Buffalo's offensive line is the second-worst in the league at allowing pass pressure within three seconds in the pocket. "" QB http://forums.twobil...ine-in-the-nfl/ BTW, The ineptitude is still there, its just being masked by a good QB and the scheme....one of the reasons this team only won 6 games...and the offense has dropped to pathetic. Don't forget in that 40 point win the offense only scored 6pts...by the RB Thanks for the link. Some very telling info in there for the crowd that sees the offenses statistical successes in the sack and rushing stat columns as being more a factor of our system, QB and RBs. I won't go so far as to say the offensive line sucks but we need better players. Hopefully the stubborn Bell experiment at LT is over but I fear that Hairiston is going to be the next experiment. Good teams don't take a few years per to experiment at the very important LT position with UFAs and 4th round picks. Pears at RT also worries me due to his drive killing holding and false start penalties. To make this line a strength at the very least we need a slam dunk plug in starter at LT and someone to challenge Pears at RT and drive him to get a good deal better or take his job.
jjmac Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 It would seem to be both, but I still wouldn't mind seeing some upgraded depth in the line.
PDaDdy Posted December 30, 2011 Author Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) It would seem to be both, but I still wouldn't mind seeing some upgraded depth in the line. Yes. As stated repeatedly it's both but the question is which factors are more important than others. Some believe that it is the line that is "pretty good" and the scheme, QB and RBs are lesser contributing factors. Some feel that the line does need some significant upgrades and that the scheme, QB and RBs are much more significant factors. Many including myself believe that we need much more than "depth". We need starters. Nobodies' jobs but Wood and Levitre should be guaranteed. Anyone else could be easily be upgraded if the right FA or draft pick is available. Do we have some guys that are good enough? SURE! Can we do better? Absolutely! Edited December 30, 2011 by PDaDdy
Gray Beard Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Both last year and this year, whenever anyone subbed in for Fitz, the sack fest began. Fitz is well practiced at getting the ball out quickly, and a sub just doesn't understand how critical it is to get the ball out quickly. With practice a sub could probably learn to get rid of the ball quickly, but so far nobody has been in that position long enough to learn. Fitz has time to make one or two reads, and then he throws the ball. Most of the time I think he goes with his first read. He is also called a gunslinger because he throws into tight coverage so often. I think that is because he doesn't have the luxury to wait and be sure that somebody is open, he just throws the ball and hopes for the best. Fitz is also reluctant to throw it away, which actually leads to sacks and interceptions that a quarterback with a different mindset might be able to avoid. He is also rolling out more which keeps the play alive, but his accuracy suffers (that's a scary thought) when he tries to throw on the run. I am mostly talking about Fitz adapting to life with limited time in the pocket, but I also believe that the O-line has been better this year. If one or two more reliable guys can be added for depth, the O-line will become pretty darn good. I also think the run blocking has been much better this year.
thewildrabbit Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Thanks for the link. Some very telling info in there for the crowd that sees the offenses statistical successes in the sack and rushing stat columns as being more a factor of our system, QB and RBs. I won't go so far as to say the offensive line sucks but we need better players. Hopefully the stubborn Bell experiment at LT is over but I fear that Hairiston is going to be the next experiment. Good teams don't take a few years per to experiment at the very important LT position with UFAs and 4th round picks. Pears at RT also worries me due to his drive killing holding and false start penalties. To make this line a strength at the very least we need a slam dunk plug in starter at LT and someone to challenge Pears at RT and drive him to get a good deal better or take his job. NP I would be more then willing to go as far as stating the O line sucks, it has sucked for over a decade. Marv as GM had the right idea about building the O line but went about it the wrong way, thru free agency. Plus he ignored the Center position which is a key position and even as important as the LT position A dominant O line would give the offense so many more options, it opens up the entire offensive playbook, not just a short passing game.It would give them a medium to deep passing game,one where a speedy deep threat WR would be a very valuable asset. Randy Moss in his prime would be useless on this team as it stands. It would give this team more options in the run game as it would allow them to at least have a chance at 3rd and one by running. They could utilize an elephant offense in the red zone. Every head coach since Gregg Williams in 2002 has ignored building the O line properly, even then Tom Donahoe screwed the Pooch with a bad pick at #4 overall with a supposed top LT in Mike D Williams who ended up at RT for 4 years. It almost makes me wonder if there isn't some prime directive by this owner to not draft O Tackles. The only other point I'd like to make is that playing on the O line is not as simple as everyone thinks it is, as it usually takes 2-3 years to fully develop a young player. Even then if he isn't coached up properly he may never fully develop properly. Kinda why you need good depth behind the starters to play special teams and allow for substitutions at times.A good team should always be developing young talent for the line. Head coach Mike Mularky had the right idea when he hired 25 year veteran O line coach Jim McNally away from the NY Giants, McNally was the one who took an undrafted walkon TE and turned him into an all pro LT in Jason Peters. If there is a top OT in this years draft, Nix / Gailey would be wise to select him
thewildrabbit Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Just wanted to add one thing, should the Bills draft an O tackle with that first pick. This is what you will hear from Fitzy all year long next year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKlZx4GySD0
PDaDdy Posted December 30, 2011 Author Posted December 30, 2011 Just wanted to add one thing, should the Bills draft an O tackle with that first pick. This is what you will hear from Fitzy all year long next year youtube.com/watch?v=rKlZx4GySD0
PDaDdy Posted December 30, 2011 Author Posted December 30, 2011 NP I would be more then willing to go as far as stating the O line sucks, it has sucked for over a decade. Marv as GM had the right idea about building the O line but went about it the wrong way, thru free agency. Plus he ignored the Center position which is a key position and even as important as the LT position A dominant O line would give the offense so many more options, it opens up the entire offensive playbook, not just a short passing game.It would give them a medium to deep passing game,one where a speedy deep threat WR would be a very valuable asset. Randy Moss in his prime would be useless on this team as it stands. It would give this team more options in the run game as it would allow them to at least have a chance at 3rd and one by running. They could utilize an elephant offense in the red zone. Every head coach since Gregg Williams in 2002 has ignored building the O line properly, even then Tom Donahoe screwed the Pooch with a bad pick at #4 overall with a supposed top LT in Mike D Williams who ended up at RT for 4 years. It almost makes me wonder if there isn't some prime directive by this owner to not draft O Tackles. The only other point I'd like to make is that playing on the O line is not as simple as everyone thinks it is, as it usually takes 2-3 years to fully develop a young player. Even then if he isn't coached up properly he may never fully develop properly. Kinda why you need good depth behind the starters to play special teams and allow for substitutions at times.A good team should always be developing young talent for the line. Head coach Mike Mularky had the right idea when he hired 25 year veteran O line coach Jim McNally away from the NY Giants, McNally was the one who took an undrafted walkon TE and turned him into an all pro LT in Jason Peters. If there is a top OT in this years draft, Nix / Gailey would be wise to select him I hear ya and pretty much agree with every point you've made. They have made strides but an above average line opens up the play book for routes that take more time than Fitz currently has to work with. I would say the line run blocks better than it pass blocks but a very good line turns Freddie and CJ into the 1 - 2 death punch that should be the focus of this team. We would be capable of grinding it out at the end of games and when the weather isn't conducive to the passing game. This of course helps keep the defense fresh. When that is rolling and with another 1/2 second plus of reliable time in the pocket our offense would be deadly.
thewildrabbit Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 I hear ya and pretty much agree with every point you've made. They have made strides but an above average line opens up the play book for routes that take more time than Fitz currently has to work with. I would say the line run blocks better than it pass blocks but a very good line turns Freddie and CJ into the 1 - 2 death punch that should be the focus of this team. We would be capable of grinding it out at the end of games and when the weather isn't conducive to the passing game. This of course helps keep the defense fresh. When that is rolling and with another 1/2 second plus of reliable time in the pocket our offense would be deadly. The thing is, that Spread offense the Bills use with 3-5 WR's makes it easier on the running game as teams can't really "stack the box" as the DB's will all be on the edge covering the wideouts. This makes it much easier on the RB's and also allows them to break longer runs, which is exactly why Jackson & Spiller can thrive in this offense. That is if Gailey would use them more often, even when the Bills are behind in the score. But yea, they run block better then they pass block for sure. I could see CJ Spiller becoming another Jamaal Charles or Chris Johnson and reaching that rushing title with the right HC / OC. Freddy is older and it would be much wiser to keep him as the pass catcher & 3rd down back and he has supreme ability in the passing game. Plus it would allow him to play quite a few more years. Gailey's failing is that he doesn't use Spiller or Jackson enough all game long. In that Dallas Game Jackson was killing the Cowboys (13 carries for 114 yards, 8.7 YPC avg) and Gailey just stopped running it...completely moronic in my view, keep running and make them focus on stopping the run no matter what the score is, then throw it.
Peter Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Bingo Another reason for the low amount of sacks is that the Bills don't have a deep passing game, kinda the reason Lee Evans wasn't very valuable in Gaileys offense. What made JP Losman & Trent Edwards look so inept so often is that Schonert would call for 5-7 step drop back passes in that "Mike Martz" scheme the Bills ran under Jauron, when they clearly weren't allowed the time to throw deep by the O lines. So it is a combination of Fitz and scheme that have resulted in so few sacks, this O line still stinks in my view. Besides this passing offense in being so one dimensional is the reason for their failure to keep moving the ball in every game all year There was an article made by ESPN this year (before Wood going on IR) which stated the Bills were the second worst in the NFL in allowing pressure after 3 seconds, so even with that short passing game Fitz still is under a ton of pressure all the time. ""The team that takes the shortest amount of time to throw is the Buffalo Bills Fitzpatrick, also a top-10 quarterback according to Total QBR, has to get the ball out so quickly because Buffalo's offensive line is the second-worst in the league at allowing pass pressure within three seconds in the pocket. "" QB http://forums.twobil...ine-in-the-nfl/ BTW, The ineptitude is still there, its just being masked by a good QB and the scheme....one of the reasons this team only won 6 games...and the offense has dropped to pathetic. Don't forget in that 40 point win the offense only scored 6pts...by the RB
jjmac Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Yes. As stated repeatedly it's both but the question is which factors are more important than others. Some believe that it is the line that is "pretty good" and the scheme, QB and RBs are lesser contributing factors. Some feel that the line does need some significant upgrades and that the scheme, QB and RBs are much more significant factors. Many including myself believe that we need much more than "depth". We need starters. Nobodies' jobs but Wood and Levitre should be guaranteed. Anyone else could be easily be upgraded if the right FA or draft pick is available. Do we have some guys that are good enough? SURE! Can we do better? Absolutely! Our starters could stand to be upgraded, true, but with the major needs we have in other areas, and with Nix's preference for building through the draft, it is going to take some time. Even though patience is not on my very short list of virtues, I actually prefer building almost exclusively through the draft, the anti-Dan Snyder. That way, there is more money available under the cap when guys hit the end of their rookie contracts.
Recommended Posts