Why I'm Satisfied with where we are on OL

[d_wag]

Yep, that sums it up. Thanks for the cliff notes! The rest I'm just thinking it through for myself and I find that writing the thoughts down allows me to give it some order.  To the extent that folks want to read my rantings because it triggers their own thinking or adds things they haven't thought about or have not been able to give too much time to I think that is fine and appreciate any reactions, To the extent my rantings are just dronings and they pass them by that is quite fine also.

 

To the extent folks find my dronings a waste of their time and they waste their time reading it sorry but I can't control what they choose to read. To the extent they waste even more time responding on TSW to these dronings, well maybe they need to talk to a psychologist about their choices, its beyond me.

271062[/snapback]

 

you have some good ideas FFS, and often times you do bring up points i haven't considered or thought of.......the problem is having to sort through so many repetitive lines that often i just get bored and go to the next post, missing out on the good stuff.........you don't have to repeat "MW lost his grandmother who raised him and came to camp overweight" time after time -- that is stuff we already know........you spend so much time trying to back up your opinions that the good points just get lost in the clutter.......anyway, just my two cents......i'm not telling you how to post, that is up to you.......

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

you have some good ideas FFS, and often times you do bring up points i haven't considered or thought of.......the problem is having to sort through so many repetitive lines that often i just get bored and go to the next post, missing out on the good stuff.........you don't have to repeat "MW lost his grandmother who raised him and came to camp overweight" time after time -- that is stuff we already know........you spend so much time trying to back up your opinions that the good points just get lost in the clutter.......anyway, just my two cents......i'm not telling you how to post, that is up to you.......

271336[/snapback]

 

Many thanks! I understand the failings of my rants and because of thoughtful posts such as this I have tried to alter them in the past with items like using Cliff Notes for my drones. I should probably bite the bullet and do a bit more editing and produce more compact posts. I will give it a try.

[Mickey]

Cause it ain't over yet.

 

I think it is obvious that we want and almost certainly need some better players on OL.  However, I think RIGHT NOW it is clear that:

 

1. The Bills braintrust knows we can certainly use some more talent on the OL and is trying to acquire it.

 

2. Despite many of the  most talented guys (Jones/Pace) being unavailable due to tags and being too expensive (it looks like DeMulling may get an offer beyond his worth and I think the Niners paid more for JJ than he is worth to the Bills) I think there are a number of opportunities still available for the Bills to pick up OL players that fit within the salary cap budget of a winning Bills team who may well upgrade our performance over current levels (the key here is not judging simply whether a player is good, but more important whether he is better than what we got).

 

3. FA is a great tool for improving OL and team performance, but it is not the Holy Grail and the only way to improve team performance.  Its a great thing (I think the Gandy acquisition is an upgrade for us at a cap friendly cost) but is merely the current act in still unfolding play where there are several acts to follow for upgrades to our Ol and team.  Specifically, I look to:

 

A. Ongoing FA acqusitions: we are still in the hunt for DeMulling who is we can get him at an affordable cap hit (its going to be tough for us to go higher than a $3 million annual salary as this is what we are paying Villarial and already made a larger commitment to MW who simply needs to step up to be the 4th player selected he was originally signed to be- it looked doubtful he could do this after his grandma died and he skipped off-season workouts last year, but given his performance last year once he got his act together this is no sure thing at all but possible.  If we can get a quality talent like a deMulling at an affordable price I say go for it.  If not, then JMac and the crew need to gauge whether folks like Womack can be enough of a player (he sounds like he needs an attitude adjustment of the type successfully accomplished with Sam Adams so he ends his history of low discipline and taking too many plays off) to be worth what will probably be a good lower cost in this OL market.

 

B. Trades: The Shelton/Henry deal is dormant for now, but soes make a lot of sense for both teams.  If Henry and a long-term contract is in fact the sticking point, he needs to realize that the Bills are not going to trade him unless we get the goods and that he will need to be the best back-up for WM he can be if we decide not to trade him and he still wants a big FA score.  If he sticks around, he needs to play as well as he can because if he does not he will add another non-productive year to his resume and it won't take too much in terms of bad mouthing if he leaves folks here with a sour taste from the 2005 experience for him to only be able to pull around the NFL minimum when he hits the FA marker next year.  A trade for Shelton or some other OL talent looks less likely now but is still a possibility.

 

C. Cap casualties: It does surprise me that folks seem to have their panties all up in a wad over not having better players right here right now.  it certainly would be far better to have folks in the fold now because they would get voluntary camp practice as Bills and continuity is something to be valued.  However, when June 1st comes around, I suspect there may be some interesting OL cap casualties available and if so the Bills can still pick up a talented vet who it is to be hoped can fit in quickly and produce.  I'm not saying this will happen (many players have escalators in their contracts which force the decision to cut them to be made earlier than the June 1st date) but this is possible. The 2001 Pats team which won the SB picked up about 15 players after the June date that year.

 

D. The draft: It is unlikely that the Bills will be able to pick up a player in this year's draft who will contribute to this year's team. However, it is possible if the Bills see a player who is worthy of their first pick (2nd round) who is on the OL or we trade Henry for a first day pick.  Again, the draft is an unlikely source of an OL contributor this year but this is possible.

 

E. Internal development: This is even a more likely spot for the Bills to find immediate help than the draft as several players are on the roster who are actually ahead of where Lswrence Smith was last year when we acquired him off the Ravens PS and he became an inadequate starter on our troubled OL.  Again this is less than likely but cannot be ignored as a real source for a quality back-up and maybe even if lightening strikes a real player.

 

F. Coaching Improvement: The bog deal here for the Bills is that we saw last year what a difference it made in the output and learning of individual players to have an experienced hand like JMac directing things rather than the not-ready-for-primetime Ronny Vinklarek whose primary resume stuffer that got him the OL position coach job was that he was a friend of GW since he had never held the OL job before.  Even this could not save him as he lost the job after two years of nothing to show for it beyond what Ruben and player talent did for the group and we "upgraded" to Ruel who brought 1 year of OL position coach experience with Detroit to the job.

 

Say what you want about your assessment of JMac but no one can argue that he wasn't a huge upgade over Vinky and Ruel.  In fact beyind that he did take an OL with NYG which featured talents at the level of Dusty Ziegler and quickly fashioned them into an OL unit which was hailed as a key to them making the SB that year.

 

Clearly with the addition of a quality rusher like WM who ran through many mistakes our "work in progress" OL made JMac did an outstanding job under the Clements plan:

 

A. Doing a major attitude adjustment an training of MW to get a good performance out of him last year when he entered the season looking like a bust in minicamp.

B. Filling the void left by the demise of Ruben (a demise dictated by the Butler overpayment to him years ago and by him publicly taking on Kevin Gilbride for his mismanagement of the team- Ruben was correct in protecting himself and his teammates for GW/i;bride excuses, but if you take on the boss you're probably dead in this world) with the development of Smith and filling the gaps in Smith's redzone game with some quick teaching and innovative usage of Bannan as LG.

c. Guiding a masterful juggling of the OL as we went into the streak caused by the injury to Teague and the too often exits from games by Jennings which caused him to plug in Tucker and Price effectively so we never even noticed these burps as far as W/L during the streak.

 

As we head into 2005, not only will JMac get a second year with players such as MW, Tucker and Smith but he and Clements, MM and he are going into their second year of working together rather than getting to know each other while I the same time dealing with the disarray of players they had not chosen who lacked good training working in a system they did not design. It strikes me as shortsighted for folks to simply declare players like Smith or Tucker not good enough.  If Smith has anywhere near the progress in his game from 04-05 that he had from 03-04 where he progressed from the PS of the Ravens to not only make the active roster of the Bills but winning a starting job over the at least ill-trained if not ill-picked Pacillo then he will be very good this year.

 

I see know reason why Tucker and Smith should not progress at least somewhat under JMac this off-season and if they do they will at least be solid back-ups and may well win starting jobs over some better playing FAs we bring in.

 

So in the picture, I do not think our OL players are good enough yet for them to be where we want them to be.  However, even with the exchange of JJ for Gandy on the roster, I am quite pleased to see us where we are which is to have a lot of options on the roster and several more opportunities between now and the voluntary camps and between now and pre-season to improve the OL even more.

 

I'm not worried at all about the OL in fact I am quite psyched.  I am confident this crew will be better and I haven't even gotten to the fact they will be running pas pro for a far more mobile QB who can avoid tackles when they make the mistakes all players do and who actually offers up a lot of weapons as a running and accurate passing QB while in motion.  I liked a lot of what MM did with Bledsoe and his strengths and limitations, but no one ever mistook Bledsoe for a runner or for a QB whose accuracy suffered a lot when he was forced to move.

 

I am really pysched.

269645[/snapback]

This looks like more of the same old, same old: trying to piece together a decent offensive line on the cheap. Generally, you get what you pay for.

 

McNally will have to spin some straw into gold or we are going to spend the season watching Losman inhaling smelling salts on the sideline.

[Rico]

This looks like more of the same old, same old: trying to piece together a decent offensive line on the cheap.  Generally, you get what you pay for.

271513[/snapback]

Some of the OL talent we've paid for over the past 15 years:

a #1 on John Fina

a #2 on Mark Traynowicz

a #3 on Leonard Burton

a #3 on Corey Loucheiy

a #3 on Robert Hicks

big $$$ (at the time) for Joe Panos

 

I trust TD & JMac to get the best value for our OL.

This doesn't mean burning high draft picks or big $$$,

save that for your skill players.

Recent history in the NFL shows that you don't need to overspend on your OL.

[Astrobot]

Some of the OL talent we've paid for over the past 15 years:

a #1 on John Fina

a #2 on Mark Traynowicz

a #3 on Leonard Burton

a #3 on Corey Loucheiy

a #3 on Robert Hicks

big $$$ (at the time) for Joe Panos

 

 

I trust TD & JMac to get the best value for our OL.

This doesn't mean burning high draft picks or big $$$,

save that for your skill players.

Recent history in the NFL shows that you don't need to overspend on your OL.

You have to wonder:

(1) if we're the worst at finding good OL talent. I doubt it, but your list is impressing me on one thing--it's way less of a shoo-in than you think.

(2) I hope we're not adding MW to the list down the line.

(3) Would a #2 on Baas, Brooks, Brown, Carter or Wilkerson be just as much of a bust?

[Rico]

You have to wonder:

(1)  if we're the worst at finding good OL talent. I doubt it, but your list is impressing me on one thing--it's way less of a shoo-in than you think.

(2) I hope we're not adding MW to the list down the line.

(3) Would a #2 on Baas, Brooks, Brown, Carter or Wilkerson be just as much of a bust?

271688[/snapback]

1. All the players listed were pre-TD but more importantly pre-JMac. TD has made some horrible high OL picks with the Steelers, but I think JMac knows talent when he sees it.

2. I hope not, too.

3. Who really knows? Hopefully JMac does. I'd be just as happy with another CB.

I just don't want to see the Bills pull a Tillman again, gotta take the best available athlete that makes sense (ie. if you're up & you've got say 5-6 players all close in your grading, take the one whose position you need the most). Don't reach for an OL if there are much better choices.

[R. Rich]

People keep referencing Tillman and Flowers (what a stupid last name) as proof positive that you never draft for need. Tennessee took the 'best available' athlete last year by drafting TE Ben Troupe, regardless of the fact that they had already drafted 2 other TEs in recent years (Shad Meier, Erron Kinney). How'd that work for the Titans? My point is, it's not a 'never draft for need' or a 'never draft best available' scenario. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

[The Jokeman]

People keep referencing Tillman and Flowers (what a stupid last name) as proof positive that you never draft for need.  Tennessee took the 'best available' athlete last year by drafting TE Ben Troupe, regardless of the fact that they had already drafted 2 other TEs in recent years (Shad Meier, Erron Kinney).  How'd that work for the Titans?  My point is, it's not a 'never draft for need' or a 'never draft best available' scenario.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

272402[/snapback]

Not to mention had the Bills drafted Darren Howard instead of Flowers we would of drafted for need and no one would be complaining. As Donahoe truly said weeks ago the draft is a crapshoot.

[Rico]

People keep referencing Tillman and Flowers (what a stupid last name) as proof positive that you never draft for need.  Tennessee took the 'best available' athlete last year by drafting TE Ben Troupe, regardless of the fact that they had already drafted 2 other TEs in recent years (Shad Meier, Erron Kinney).  How'd that work for the Titans?  My point is, it's not a 'never draft for need' or a 'never draft best available' scenario.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

272402[/snapback]

I could be wrong, but it appeared that Tillman was a last-minute reach after Deon Grant was taken. That was a mistake. And I also think it's a mistake to blindly take the best available athlete.

 

The Bills right now have the 55th pick in the draft. Say a QB is at the top of their list of who's left and an OG is 2nd; if both players are graded fairly close, it only makes sense to take the OG. But if the QB has a significantly higher grade than the OG, then you've gotta take the QB.

 

I thought Troupe would go higher in the draft last year, he was probably significantly higher on the Titans' board than the next player, so it made sense for them to take him.

[The Jokeman]

I could be wrong, but it appeared that Tillman was a last-minute reach after Deon Grant was taken. That was a mistake.  And I also think it's a mistake to blindly take the best available athlete.

 

The Bills right now have the 55th pick in the draft. Say a QB is at the top of their list of who's left and an OG is 2nd; if both players are graded fairly close, it only makes sense to take the OG. But if the QB has a significantly higher grade than the OG, then you've gotta take the QB.

 

I thought Troupe would go higher in the draft last year, he was probably significantly higher on the Titans' board than the next player, so it made sense for them to take him.

272415[/snapback]

I'll go one step further with your example. We're at pick #55 the Bills have a coice between an OG and a QB. The OG is graded at a 70, the QB is rated at an 80. Significantly the QB is higher as you stated but let's look at the next available OG, he's graded at a 60. Who do you take then? I take the OG rated as a 70 since if we took the QB and waited until the next pick to take the OG there'd be a significant drop off in talent in the position we need more help at. As the draft is the best collection of players total, not the best player with each pick.

 

It's probably why in 1983 the Bills took Tony Hunter before Jim Kelly, granted Hunter turned out to be a bust but the drop off between Hunter and the next TE (Jamie Williams drafted in the 3rd Round) was probably viewed as a far greater then the drop off between the next QB (Tony Eason or Ken O'Brien or Dan Marino)

[Rico]

I'll go one step further with your example. We're at pick #55 the Bills have a coice between an OG and a QB. The OG is graded at a 70, the QB is rated at an 80. Significantly the QB is higher as you stated but let's look at the next available OG, he's graded at a 60. Who do you take then? I take the OG rated as a 70 since if we took the QB and waited until the next pick to take the OG there'd be a significant drop off in talent in the position we need more help at. As the draft is the best collection of players total, not the best player with each pick.

 

It's probably why in 1983 the Bills took Tony Hunter before Jim Kelly, granted Hunter turned out to be a bust but the drop off between Hunterand the next TE  (Jamie Williams drafted in the 3rd Round) was probably viewed as a far greater then the drop off between the next QB (Tony Eason or Ken O'Brien or Dan Marino)

272426[/snapback]

Good points, I'd have to agree with your logic. Again, I don't think there's such a thing as blindly "take the best athlete available", it just doesn't make sense.