O line concerns?

[thewildrabbit]

How many NFL teams, honestly, are able to pick up a consistent 1-2 yards rushing in situations best characterized as "we're going to run, you know we're going to run, now stop us?"

 

I'll put that number at one or two, tops (MIN and HOU come to mind), but I think the RB is primarily the reason. I am open to arguments otherwise, so convince me.

 

Suffice it to say, I believe that claiming your OL is weak because you can't just "line 'em up" and get 2 yards is unrealistic.

I don't feel the need to convince you of anything. I'm only replying to give my thoughts on the subject.

 

When you look at the size and weight of the Buffalo Bills O line players Glenn 6'5" 343, Urbik 6'5'' 324, Hairston 6'6'' 330, Wood 6'4'' 304, Pears 6'8'' 305, and Levitre 6'2'' 306 was the runt of the litter. You would think that the line has more then enough size and girth to move the LoS 2-3 feet to make a first down against any opposing team. To me, Its a matter of will, determination and coaching.

 

it is my belief that those line players should have been coached up to make a 3rd and short by rushing, they weren't. Instead Gailey chose to mostly throw in short yardage situations. He chose to install a short, quick passing scheme to help make things easier for his line.

 

Like I've said before I'm old school, and the very first thing that line should be able to do is power block to make 2-3 yards, and get those first downs by running. Its not just the Texans & Vikings. The 49ers can do it, the Ravens can do it, Seattle can do it, among others.

 

Almost every NFL team has an "elephant offense", which is what they utilize on goal line situations when they need a TD within the 5 yard line or closer. A closed formation set with 2-3 TE's. The Ravens used to use tackles to replace their TE's in these situations.

 

To me, its very troubling to have the 6th best rushing offense in the NFL in 2012 and yet the line can't make a first down on 3rd and short by running from a closed formation. The spread offense along with Spiller's elusiveness was the reason for the good rushing stats. But those stats don't equate to wins if you can't control the LoS and the clock. capiche?

[eball]

I don't feel the need to convince you of anything. I'm only replying to give my thoughts on the subject.

 

When you look at the size and weight of the Buffalo Bills O line players Glenn 6'5" 343, Urbik 6'5'' 324, Hairston 6'6'' 330, Wood 6'4'' 304, Pears 6'8'' 305, and Levitre 6'2'' 306 was the runt of the litter. You would think that the line has more then enough size and girth to move the LoS 2-3 feet to make a first down against any opposing team. To me, Its a matter of will, determination and coaching.

 

it is my belief that those line players should have been coached up to make a 3rd and short by rushing, they weren't. Instead Gailey chose to mostly throw in short yardage situations. He chose to install a short, quick passing scheme to help make things easier for his line.

 

Like I've said before I'm old school, and the very first thing that line should be able to do is power block to make 2-3 yards, and get those first downs by running. Its not just the Texans & Vikings. The 49ers can do it, the Ravens can do it, Seattle can do it, among others.

 

Almost every NFL team has an "elephant offense", which is what they utilize on goal line situations when they need a TD within the 5 yard line or closer. A closed formation set with 2-3 TE's. The Ravens used to use tackles to replace their TE's in these situations.

 

To me, its very troubling to have the 6th best rushing offense in the NFL in 2012 and yet the line can't make a first down on 3rd and short by running from a closed formation. The spread offense along with Spiller's elusiveness was the reason for the good rushing stats. But those stats don't equate to wins if you can't control the LoS and the clock. capiche?

 

You're terribly condescending, so I'm not going to waste my time continuing the discussion other than to say I think you're over-simplifying things, and over-stating that certain teams can just pick up 2-3 yards at will. If it were that easy nobody would ever fail to convert a 3rd-and-short.

[thewildrabbit]

In true form, you continue to see only what you choose to see and ignore the rest.

 

Guess that's why we always see things differently...I'm willing to look at all the information, not just one small piece that conveniently fits my crusade.

 

Good work proving my point

Yea, we do see things differently! Deal with it ...

[Chandler#81]

 

 

You're terribly condescending, so I'm not going to waste my time continuing the discussion other than to say I think you're over-simplifying things, and over-stating that certain teams can just pick up 2-3 yards at will. If it were that easy nobody would ever fail to convert a 3rd-and-short.

 

3rd & 3 is the toughest situation in football and a QB's nightmare. -Bart Starr

 

Silly Bart, all you had to do was ask Fearthelosing..

[thewildrabbit]

You're terribly condescending, so I'm not going to waste my time continuing the discussion other than to say I think you're over-simplifying things, and over-stating that certain teams can just pick up 2-3 yards at will. If it were that easy nobody would ever fail to convert a 3rd-and-short.

Forgive me if I come across as condescending, it wasn't my intent.

 

Good teams can make those 2-3 yards, its how they win games. The bad teams can't make those yards and generally lose.

 

 

 

in 2009 I watched the Baltimore Ravens defeat the Patriots in New England during a wildcard playoff game. The 2nd year QB went 4 for 10 for 34 yards and one INT in a 33-14 win.

 

The reason the Ravens won was because of their running attack 52 attempts 234 yards and 4 TD's. They utilized their elephant offensive almost the entire game. They had 3-4 offensive tackles on that line almost every play. The Ravens gave the Buffalo Bills a perfect blueprint to beat the Patriots...nobody at OBD noticed tho.

[NewEra]

Forgive me if I come across as condescending, it wasn't my intent.

 

Good teams can make those 2-3 yards, its how they win games. The bad teams can't make those yards and generally lose.

 

 

 

in 2009 I watched the Baltimore Ravens defeat the Patriots in New England during a wildcard playoff game. The 2nd year QB went 4 for 10 for 34 yards and one INT in a 33-14 win.

 

The reason the Ravens won was because of their running attack 52 attempts 234 yards and 4 TD's. They utilized their elephant offensive almost the entire game. They had 3-4 offensive tackles on that line almost every play. The Ravens gave the Buffalo Bills a perfect blueprint to beat the Patriots...nobody at OBD noticed tho.

 

And which teams have replicated what the ravens did to them in 2009, 4 years ago? That was part the perfect blueprint to defeat that patriots team 4 years ago. Good coaches adapt. Belicheck isn't a good coach. He's great. He adapts.

[thebandit27]

Like I've said before I'm old school, and the very first thing that line should be able to do is power block to make 2-3 yards, and get those first downs by running. Its not just the Texans & Vikings. The 49ers can do it, the Ravens can do it, Seattle can do it, among others.

 

 

It may surprise you to find out that you are wrong.

 

This is one group of stats that even you can't discount (I think, although I may be giving you too much credit; time--and your much-anticipated response--will tell)...check out the "Power Success" of the bolded teams:

 

http://www.footballo...rs.com/stats/ol

 

Defined as: Percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown. Also includes runs on first-and-goal or second-and-goal from the two-yard line or closer. This is the only statistic on this page that includes quarterbacks.

 

Houston - 18th

Minnesota - 30th

SF - 12th

Bal - 14th

Seattle - 4th (hey, you got one right!)

 

But hey, the "good teams that make those 2-3 yards" and win games like Carolina (1st in Power Success) and New Orleans (3rd) must LOVE fans like you!

 

No bones about it: you're flat-out wrong; the hard numbers don't lie.

Edited June 4, 2013 by thebandit27

[dave mcbride]

Serious question -- I don't have the time to go researching, but are there any actual statistics of Fitz's average snap-to-throw time? And more importantly, how it compares across the league? I've heard a lot of "Fitz masked OL deficiencies with his quick decisions and throws" but I'm skeptical.

Ask and ye shall be answered:

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/about/pff-signature-stats/

 

2012 leaders: When throwing in less than 2.6 seconds, Aaron Rodgers led the league with a 115.1 QB rating; in over 2.6 seconds, Peyton Manning’s 113.0 was tops. Andy Dalton and Ryan Fitzpatrick were quickest to get the pass away (2.40 seconds average for both), Ben Roethlisberger saw the least amount of time before taking a sack (2.43 seconds average), and Matt Schaub is quickest to decide to scramble (3.85 seconds average).

[thebandit27]

Ask and ye shall be answered:

 

https://www.profootb...ignature-stats/

 

2012 leaders: When throwing in less than 2.6 seconds, Aaron Rodgers led the league with a 115.1 QB rating; in over 2.6 seconds, Peyton Manning’s 113.0 was tops. Andy Dalton and Ryan Fitzpatrick were quickest to get the pass away (2.40 seconds average for both), Ben Roethlisberger saw the least amount of time before taking a sack (2.43 seconds average), and Matt Schaub is quickest to decide to scramble (3.85 seconds average).

 

Also interesting from that article:

 

Ryan Fitzpatrick has the biggest (passer rating) drop off (39.6 points) when he has a longer time to throw

[thewildrabbit]

And which teams have replicated what the ravens did to them in 2009, 4 years ago? That was part the perfect blueprint to defeat that patriots team 4 years ago. Good coaches adapt. Belicheck isn't a good coach. He's great. He adapts.

The Ravens didn't just win by running as they have also have a top defense. The point was the Ravens didn't need top QB play in that game and they found another way to dominate it, as they did it with both defense and running. The defense ranked #3 in both yards, pts in 2009

 

The same game plan isn't going to work every game after game. Yea Bilichick has proven he adapts better then most. Just look at the 4-1-6 defense they won SB 25 with, but his teams don't always win the SB every year.

 

Edit: my bad, "In Super Bowl XXV, Belichick came up with an unorthodox but extremely effective plan to handle the Bills' no-huddle offense. The Giants primarily used two alignments -- one featuring five defensive backs and three linebackers, the other featuring six defensive backs and two linebackers. In both, they only had two defensive linemen because it allowed them to drop as many as nine defenders into coverage and left little room for Kelly to throw. Their defenders also made a point of being especially physical with Buffalo's receivers, hitting them as hard as possible as soon as they made a catch."

 

http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/story/09000d5d80631278/article/parcells-1990-coaching-staff-was-ultimate-super-group

 

Instead of building a power running team like the Ravens have to compete against the Patriots. The Buffalo Bills try and build a high power offensive passing game with a lame backup QB as the starter. That make sense to you?

Edited June 4, 2013 by FeartheLosing

[thebandit27]

The Ravens didn't just win by running as they have also have a top defense. The point was the Ravens didn't need top QB play in that game and they found another way to dominate it, as they did it with both defense and running. The defense ranked #3 in both yards, pts in 2009

 

The same game plan isn't going to work every game after game. Yea Bilichick has proven he adapts better then most. Just look at the 4-1-6 defense they won SB 25 with, but his teams don't always win the SB every year.

 

Instead of building a power running team like the Ravens have to compete against the Patriots. The try and build a power offensive passing game with a lame backup QB as the starter. That make sense to you?

 

Good grief man, are you ever accurate about anything football-related? It's well-documented that the Giants ran a 2-4-5 alignment (2 down linemen) in Superbowl XXV:

 

http://fifthdown.blo...iants-vs-bills/

 

To better match up against Buffalo’s 3 wide receiver sets, the Giants used only two down linemen, Erik Howard and Leonard Marshall, and extra defensive backs in different versions of the nickel defense. They opened the game with Reyna Thompson as the slot corner and strong safety Greg Jackson down in the box. Later, and throughout almost all of the second half, Gary Reasons replaced either Jackson as the fourth linebacker, or Thompson, with Jackson then moving out over the slot receiver. The Giants moved defenders around to give Kelly different looks.

 

This is becoming comical.

Edited June 4, 2013 by thebandit27

[BillsVet]

I've gotta think an nfl head coach that played offensive line will not tolerate in any way shape or form a sub-par offensive line.

 

Levitre and Rinehart will be missed, but Urbik, Wood, Glenn are a solid core, Hairston and Pears were adequate at LT and Zerbie Sanders is still a big TBD with potential. Between Brown and Young they should be able to get something working at guard.

 

Not a prowbowl compliment yet, but I cannot imagine Marrone won't make it a priority to have solid Oline play.

 

Jim McNally used to coach the Bills OL and was handed very little to work with. Not surprisingly, the OL struggled particularly running the ball in short yardage. What should concern people is the team doesn't use high resources on their OL, instead focusing on players from the waiver wire, practice squads, or late round draft picks to round out their OL. Meanwhile, several teams are drafting mobile athletic types who can move, not the space eater win in a phone booth type preferred by Nix.

 

At this point no one knows who'll start at LG, a position that demands outstanding agility. Urbik's penciled in at RG, the RT position is a question mark, Glenn has 1 year under his belt, and Wood seems solid. The depth behind them isn't strong either, marked by plenty of UDFA's and street FA types. The line is not in any way shape or form a strong point despite who the coaches are.

[mEAz]

The Ravens didn't just win by running as they have also have a top defense. The point was the Ravens didn't need top QB play in that game and they found another way to dominate it, as they did it with both defense and running. The defense ranked #3 in both yards, pts in 2009

 

The same game plan isn't going to work every game after game. Yea Bilichick has proven he adapts better then most. Just look at the 4-1-6 defense they won SB 25 with, but his teams don't always win the SB every year.

 

Instead of building a power running team like the Ravens have to compete against the Patriots. The Buffalo Bills try and build a high power offensive passing game with a lame backup QB as the starter. That make sense to you?

 

if you believe that you don't need top QB play to succeed in today's NFL, then I'm afraid the game has passed you by. And while there is some merit to the point that you need to be creative in game plan, you can't use a statistical outlier to prove a point.

 

Maybe a little off topic, but after reading this post it occurred to me that this shows an example of how there is a divide among fans in the traditional theories off old school football vs the new wave of stats based theories. I find the discussions fascinating.

 

To return back to the OP's question, there def are some questions heading into training camp about the O-Line. At this point though, I wouldn't be overly concerned about how that unit will perform. A LG can easily be replaced, and OL can be one of the biggest benefactors of 'coaching up'.

[eball]

Ask and ye shall be answered:

 

https://www.profootb...ignature-stats/

 

2012 leaders: When throwing in less than 2.6 seconds, Aaron Rodgers led the league with a 115.1 QB rating; in over 2.6 seconds, Peyton Manning’s 113.0 was tops. Andy Dalton and Ryan Fitzpatrick were quickest to get the pass away (2.40 seconds average for both), Ben Roethlisberger saw the least amount of time before taking a sack (2.43 seconds average), and Matt Schaub is quickest to decide to scramble (3.85 seconds average).

 

Thanks Dave. For whatever reason I can't get that link to load on my computer; what was the overall average in the NFL?

[thebandit27]

Thanks Dave. For whatever reason I can't get that link to load on my computer; what was the overall average in the NFL?

 

PFF's website has been screwy for a week or so now...not sure why

[eball]

Jim McNally used to coach the Bills OL and was handed very little to work with. Not surprisingly, the OL struggled particularly running the ball in short yardage. What should concern people is the team doesn't use high resources on their OL, instead focusing on players from the waiver wire, practice squads, or late round draft picks to round out their OL. Meanwhile, several teams are drafting mobile athletic types who can move, not the space eater win in a phone booth type preferred by Nix.

 

At this point no one knows who'll start at LG, a position that demands outstanding agility. Urbik's penciled in at RG, the RT position is a question mark, Glenn has 1 year under his belt, and Wood seems solid. The depth behind them isn't strong either, marked by plenty of UDFA's and street FA types. The line is not in any way shape or form a strong point despite who the coaches are.

 

There are 160 starting offensive linemen in the NFL. How many were acquired with "high resources?" What is the definition of "high resources" anyway? Top three rounds of the draft? If that's the criteria, then 80% of the Bills' starters were acquired in that manner (Glenn/Wood/Urbik/Hairston).

 

Was the line a strong point "in any way shape or form" last season? If it was, then Levitre and the backup services of Rheinholdsgebotenstein are the only subtractions.

 

How many backup linemen across the league are not "UDFA's and street free agent types?"

 

I don't know the answer to these questions -- just posing them as a counterpoint to your definitive statements.

Edited June 4, 2013 by eball

[thewildrabbit]

if you believe that you don't need top QB play to succeed in today's NFL, then I'm afraid the game has passed you by. And while there is some merit to the point that you need to be creative in game plan, you can't use a statistical outlier to prove a point.

 

Maybe a little off topic, but after reading this post it occurred to me that this shows an example of how there is a divide among fans in the traditional theories off old school football vs the new wave of stats based theories. I find the discussions fascinating.

 

To return back to the OP's question, there def are some questions heading into training camp about the O-Line. At this point though, I wouldn't be overly concerned about how that unit will perform. A LG can easily be replaced, and OL can be one of the biggest benefactors of 'coaching up'.

Where did I say that? The Ravens just won the SB because QB Joe Flacco pretty much played lights out thru the playoffs, and SB.

 

I was merely pointing out one particular game that stood out to me with one team absolutely dominating the other with the running game. The QB had a horrid game and it didn't matter.

 

 

The Bills lost one of their top O linemen in LG Andy Levitre and he was the ONLY player not to miss time due to injuries the last 4 years. I don't see how a player like that can "easily be replaced".

Edited June 4, 2013 by FeartheLosing

[mEAz]

Where did I say that? The Ravens just won the SB because QB Joe Flacco pretty played lights out thru the playoffs, and SB.

 

I was merely pointing out one particular game that stood out to me with one team absolutely dominating the other with the running game. The QB had a horrid game and it didn't matter.

 

 

The Bills lost one of their top O linemen in LG Andy Levitre and he was the ONLY player not to miss time due to injuries the last 4 years. I don't see how a player like that can "easily be replaced".

 

I did say "IF', because I did not see you state that....and i'm not implying that Andy was a bad or even avg player, but what I am saying is that it is easier to find a good replacement at G than say a T, or obviously a QB.

 

BTW, according to some metrics at PFF (don't have time to find link at the moment), Levitre was a very good pass blocker and slightly above avg run blocker.

[thewildrabbit]

Jim McNally used to coach the Bills OL and was handed very little to work with. Not surprisingly, the OL struggled particularly running the ball in short yardage. What should concern people is the team doesn't use high resources on their OL, instead focusing on players from the waiver wire, practice squads, or late round draft picks to round out their OL. Meanwhile, several teams are drafting mobile athletic types who can move, not the space eater win in a phone booth type preferred by Nix.

 

At this point no one knows who'll start at LG, a position that demands outstanding agility. Urbik's penciled in at RG, the RT position is a question mark, Glenn has 1 year under his belt, and Wood seems solid. The depth behind them isn't strong either, marked by plenty of UDFA's and street FA types. The line is not in any way shape or form a strong point despite who the coaches are.

Hey, i agree

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

Regardless, as I've said repeatedly, I can't find a way to focus on the minor deficiencies of the OL when there are so many other unproven areas.

THIS.

 

In 2012 the O-line was arguably the best unit on the entire team. QB play was inadequate. Stevie was very good but other WR play was awful, Spiller was excellent but Jackson and Choice were awful, so skill positions as a whole were decent but needed improvement. D-line was inadequate, LBs were awful, DBs were half-decent.

 

Quibble with the above if you want but the point is it was a far higher priority for the Bills this offseason to 1a) find a damn quarterback already and 1b) do what was needed to field a competent defense, and 2) improve the WR position. Addressing any problems the OL has was correctly put off until next year.

 

Hopefully Marrone can work some magic and keep the OL playing decently. If they're not good enough improvements will be made next year. Without a QB or a DEFENSE we had little choice but to do it this way.

Edited June 4, 2013 by J-Gun Boone