Offensive Line.......?

[Adam]

Did Marv and company upgrade our offensive line enough from last season? To me this is the most important part of this team that needed to be upgraded.

Well?

719836[/snapback]

I think Melvin Fowler is a HUGE upgrade at center over Teague- and that should trickle down to the guards and tackles. Preston- we'll see on him, too early to judge. Reyes is very highly touted, so if he pans out, we could be a lot better.

 

Wont be able to tell till at least mid-way through the season

[Orton's Arm]

A. Will they find legit back-ups when injuries occur and/or someone plays like a Bennie Anderson-  . . .

 

B. Can JMac pull off the training and scheme job necessary to build cohesion and add value to the personnel . . .

 

C. Will the installation of the St. L scheme work well enough to set the blitz back onits heels

The two factors you point to are the quality of the backups and the quality of coaching (offensive line and overall offensive scheme). While these factors are important, I'm more interested in the quality of the starters. You have second-tier free agents manning the LG and C positions, a washed-up Villarrial at RG, an unproven Peters at RT, and an average at best player in Gandy.

 

Take Reyes for example. We hear how great Carolina's line was (it wasn't), and how even a player Carolina didn't want could be a real upgrade over Bennie Anderson. Fine. Just remember a similar style of reasoning was used a few years earlier to sell us on the idea of Trey Teague. If rummaging through the Broncos' dumpster brought us Trey Teague, we shouldn't a priori expect that rummaging through the Panthers' dumpster will turn out much better.

[5 Wide]

I think Melvin Fowler is a HUGE upgrade at center over Teague- and that should trickle down to the guards and tackles. Preston- we'll see on him, too early to judge. Reyes is very highly touted, so if he pans out, we could be a lot better.

 

Wont be able to tell till at least mid-way through the season

720375[/snapback]

 

While Reyes is a definitive upgrade over Anderson, I'm not sure I'd jump to calling him highly touted as of yet. There's a lot to prove and I'd call him an average NFL starting guard until he proves otherwise. With that being said, an average NFL starting guard is something we've lacked at that position for quite some time.

[Orton's Arm]

Fowler? I see reason for hope. They have a top OC and spent 50 million on Hutch. This could turn out well.

I grant there's no shame in being a backup to a Pro Bowler, as Fowler was in Minnesota. But prior to coming to Minnesota, Fowler spent three years in Cleveland. During those three years, Fowler never cemented himself as a starter, and other teams were apparently uninterested in making him the starter after those three years were over.

 

Rummaging through Denver's dumpster produced Trey Teague. TD dove into Baltimore's dumpster, and came up with Bennie Anderson. I'm not exactly breathless with excitement about what the search through Cleveland's dumpster is likely to produce.

[Pyrite Gal]

The two factors you point to are the quality of the backups and the quality of coaching (offensive line and overall offensive scheme).  While these factors are important, I'm more interested in the quality of the starters.  You have second-tier free agents manning the LG and C positions, a washed-up Villarrial at RG, an unproven Peters at RT, and an average at best player in Gandy. 

 

Take Reyes for example.  We hear how great Carolina's line was (it wasn't), and how even a player Carolina didn't want could be a real upgrade over Bennie Anderson.  Fine.  Just remember a similar style of reasoning was used a few years earlier to sell us on the idea of Trey Teague.  If rummaging through the Broncos' dumpster brought us Trey Teague, we shouldn't a priori expect that rummaging through the Panthers' dumpster will turn out much better.

720409[/snapback]

 

I'm not sure though what you see as the real world alternatives for this attempt.

 

1. I think real world analysis probably begins with an assessment as to whether the facts as they happened in the real world are an upgrade or not over reality. Do you argue that Anderson is a better player than Reyes, that Teague is better than Fowler or MW is better than Peters. I'm not sure anyone is making these cases. Even the most uncertainty about these issues is that some feel positively about Teague (which you obviously do not).

 

2. The next question is whether this upgarde is sufficient in quality.

 

I think that the consensus among posters (and even the Bills braintrust which clearly is talking about and configuring the OL depth chart in a manner which says that there will be competition for slots on the OL- past starters get first shot but nothing has been promised to anyone publicly including Villarial) that the current OL set-up is not sufficient.

 

3. Since mpst folks agree it is an upgrade, but that upgrade is not sufficient, it simply raises the question what do you next.

 

The Bills have chosen to try to produce a better OL by building from having better starters to see what they can get from those better starters in terms of development and synergy under JMac's guidance, produce reasonable back-ups from the accumulation of well regarded players who failed elsewhere (Gibson), developing players on the roster from the old regime (Preston, Geisinger, McFarland, Jerman etc) and draft choices (Butler, Pennington).

 

Will this work to meet Bills fan standards? Doubttful. However, given that JMac has had success in a single year with a equally or lesser talented crew in NYG, it is possible though unlikely.

 

What strikes me as most likely is that this crew will be much improved over last year though still inadequate. However, it is a reasonable development strategy as given the cap room we should have next year, it well may get us within acquisition of one outstanding and one OK player in FA that can truly make this OL outstanding by the 2007 season.

 

This approach strikes me as having a far greater chance of suceeding by 2007 than the approach of using the draft to get talented but even in the best case still need some time folks like D'Brickashaw and Mangold.

 

In fact, I think the FA based approach we seem to be taking makes a lot more sense than trying to use the draft to produce an outstanding OL by the 2007 season. I think the experience shown in the NFL with draft choices like Muike Williams, Party-boy McKinnie and Levi Jones shows that it seems to be a much more intelligent strategy to pay through the nose to buy a Levi Jones when he hits FA ratherthan pay through the nose for busts like MW or troublesome and still quite possible busts like McKinnie.

 

I like what we are doing on OL because I am confident they will be better though not yet adequate compared to last year. I also believe this approach offers a much greater chance of success in 2007 than trying to use the draft in some Mike Williams like attempt to strike gold.

[Orton's Arm]

Do you argue that Anderson is a better player than Reyes, that Teague is better than Fowler or MW is better than Peters. 

Anderson is a player Baltimore didn't want; while Reyes is a player Carolina didn't want. I'll wait and see which one is better. As for Fowler, I'm not going to assume that a guy who couldn't hold down a starting job in Cleveland represents an automatic upgrade over Teague. As for Peters, I'd love it if he was half the run blocker Mike Williams was in the second half of 2004.

 

You go on to praise the Bills for using low round draft picks and second-tier free agents to build the offensive line. This is the same strategy TD used to achieve the dismal OL results in his five years here. When he did achieve OL success in the second half of 2004, it was primarily because Jennings and Williams (both first day picks) played well at the key tackle positions.

 

You hope the free cap space the Bills will have will allow them to land a big name offensive line free agent come next off-season. How realistic is that hope? Of the players whose contracts will soon expire, many will probably be extended by their current clubs, or else will receive the franchise tag. It's rare for teams to let their best players hit free agency; and this will become more rare as the increasing salary cap allows teams to lock up their best players long-term.

 

The few premier offensive linemen that actually hit free agency will have their choice of any number of eager suitors. This past offseason, only two top tier free agent linemen signed with new teams: Hutchinson and Bentley. Supposing there were ten teams searching for big name help along the line, any given team had only a 20% chance of succeeding. Notice also that the only big names were interior linemen, because all the good tackles were locked up by the clubs that drafted them.

 

You point to the fact that some offensive linemen chosen early fail to work out well. While offensive linemen can turn out to be busts, the same is also true of strong safeties, defensive tackles, and players at every other position. A team that decides to only draft sure thing players will never draft anyone at all. Such a team will be reduced to signing the players other teams don't want; or at best the ones they want but can't quite fit under their salary caps. Because the Colts were paying Peyton Manning so much money, it was harder for them to extend Larry Triplett. But while the salary cap might make the Larry Tripletts and sometimes even the Steve Hutchinsons of the NFL available for free agency, you're never going to be able to add a Peyton Manning or a Matt Hasselbeck. More to the point, you're never going to be able to add Orlando Pace or Jonathan Ogden.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I'm not exactly breathless with excitement about what the search through Cleveland's dumpster is likely to produce.

720656[/snapback]

 

And yet you LOVE Kelly Holcomb. Am I the only one that sees the irony in this?

[Orton's Arm]

And yet you LOVE Kelly Holcomb. Am I the only one that sees the irony in this?

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to point this out.

[Pyrite Gal]

Anderson is a player Baltimore didn't want; while Reyes is a player Carolina didn't want.  I'll wait and see which one is better. 

720736[/snapback]

 

Do you see or if you see do you acknowledge that there was any difference in the same fact that Anderson's team the Ravens did not want him and why the Panthers did not want Reyes?

 

I really do not know why the Ravens were passing on Anderson.

 

However, I do believe I know why the Panthers are willing to let Reyes go.

 

The answer is that though Reyes is a solid starter in the NFL with a good track record and likely several years of good play in front of him, the team is higher on Mathis a highly rated draftee who in the Panther's judgment has a decade of play (good health allowing) in front of him and unlike Reyes should prove in their estimation to be more than a solid NFL starter but a great player.

 

From what I understand, the Panthers braintrust was ready to go with Mathis last year and had plans to give him more PT and work him into the starting line-up by the end of the season.

 

From what I hear, this plans were sidetracked because of Reyes good play at RG for the Panthers.

 

Was the situation the same for Anderson? I do not know. However, if the situation was that the Ravens braintrust was willing to let Anderson go, because they could see he was either unmotivated or really was an inconsistent player, then I think there is a real difference between the reasons why this player was allowed to go without a competitive bid from Balt and why Reyes left Carolina without them putting forth a bid which beat the Bills offer.

 

What seems to have happened to the Bills and JMac last year was that the got a G from the Ravens PS (whose name I forget) in JMac's first year. He had inherited poor players like Pacillo and Sullivan from Vinky and Ruel and found that neither of these players were remotely near what we wanted at LG.

 

He was able to find someone off of the ravens PS who actually won the starting job for us at LG in 2004. He proved to be not very good at all in the redzone and oddly had more trouble run blocking than pass blocking, so we moved fist to Bannan in the redzone and then Tucker overall and we peeled off a good win streak. My guess is that JMac assumed he could work the same magic with Anderson who had been a starter for the Ravens.

 

They failed.

 

I think it is a perfectly viable strategy to get FAs from other teams whom we think can be viable starters but they pass on for some reason that is not true in our case.

 

If we had a youngster of Mathis caliber as our LO in waiting I would oppose us signing Reyes. However, we do not and as such I support signing Reyes as a clear upgrade in 2005 performance over what we got at LG from Anderson.

 

Do you think there is a difference or do you think all players passed on by other teams should automatically be passed on?

 

I think JMac's experience was that even though the Bills were happy to cut Glenn Parker and were unwilling to give FA Dusty Ziegler a shot at being center, he was happy to have NYD sign them and Ziegler and Parker were keys to the making the SB as they blocked for Tiki Barber and Kerry Collins.

 

Likewise, to simply reject Fowler as a Cleveland pass over is not very smart football. The Bills cut OL players like Pacillo, Sullivan and Anderson, but they cut them for very different reasons than Cleve or the Vikes let Fowler go.

 

The Vikes case is more recent and clearer. Their center is multiple time Pro Bowler Matt Birk and he has been one of the best centers in the NFL this decade. He went on the DL last year with several nagging injuries which needed a year to heal. Gowever, it was quite likely that Birk would be back.

 

My understanding is that Fowler was an FA from Cleveland who was let go because either his original contract ended or because it paid him a base salary for a starter. Cleveland had made a draft pick of Jeff Faine in the second round of the draft and I was bummed as I had hopes the Bills might take him. Instead Cleveland was so bad that need was no object and they made a best player available pick in Faine. His slot gave him the equivalent of starter money.

 

My understanding was that Fowler was OK but not great with Cleveland, he did get a couple of starts and played well in them (RB Suggs pot op good numbers behind him in a maudlin Cleveland O). However, having Faine who most saw as an immediate NFL starter there was no way they were gonna pay starter money to Fowler so if the market gave him more than so be it.

 

What happened apparently was that the Vikes wanted to go with Cory Withrow as their C as he was a longtime Vike, familar with their system whom they drafted. They paid Fowler a good chunk of money though with the full knowledge of all that this was a one year deal with Birk coming back.

 

As it happened, it played out the way Fowler wanted. Withrow struggled and the Vikes went 1-3 with him at C. Fowler was inactive his first game (if this was due to injurt we should worry actually) but he forced his way into the line0up with his sub work and beat out Withrow.

 

The results improved somewhat immediately witg Fowler snapping to Culpepper. The results really took off when Vrad Johnson came in to receive the snaps from Fowler and they peeled off a 6 game winning streak.

 

Fowler unfortunately got hurt at the end of the season. Ironically this coincided with the Vikes losing some key games and missing the playoffs. My sense is that the key reason why Fowler was allowed to walk from the Vikes was that they knew the market would give him starting C money and they were committed to Birk at C,

 

Will both of these players be great?

 

Nope, I doubt it.

 

Will both of these players be an upgrade over the 2005 Bills at their position?

 

Almost certainly in Reyes case and probably in Fowler's case.

 

Will these two be adequate players and solid NFL starters?

 

I think the answer is almost certainly yes in Reyes case. He has been a solid starter for years at RG who anecdottaly was productive for NC last year, He is flipping from the right side to the left side but has started at LG before in the in this league so I suspect he can make the hop.

 

I think it is a football mistake to merely consider him a reject from some team as the reason he was passed over was because NC was high on the young player behind him they are paying big bucks to. In fact, I think one of the best pro-Reyes arguments is that they seemed to really want to go with Mathis at RG sooner but coul not because Reyes and the NC OK were dinr quite fine without him.

 

In Fiwker;s case, I actually have few doubts about this natural center's skills. The doubts I do have is that he also is an FA for the best reasons there can be as it most clearly means he is not as good as Birk (which is not indictment).

 

However, it is vexing that he has never started 16 at any point in his career and his last season ended with injury. The best case for him would be if the Vikes decided to try to see if Withrow was worth keeping (he was not and is no longer in the NFL last I saw), but I doubt this is the case and my main doubts about Fowler are not that he is a reject but that there may be an injury issue here.

 

However, I think your declarations of them as rejects is cavalier to say the least and that your vision of building an OL through the draft simply does not fit the timeline of the Golden Boys and is not the only way to build an SB capable OL in he NFL.

 

You are probably right about how pricey OL players will be next year, and this may well explain why the Bills are not spending up to the cap limit at right now.

 

Look for our next big FA purchase to be on the OL next year.

[Orton's Arm]

Do you see or if you see do you acknowledge that there was any difference in the same fact that Anderson's team the Ravens did not want him and why the Panthers did not want Reyes?

In other words, Cleveland drafted a replacement for Fowler, and Carolina drafted a replacement for Reyes. A year or two after the replacements had been added, the original players were let go or allowed to leave. This is supposed to reassure me? It doesn't. The fact Cleveland and Carolina felt the need to draft replacements for those players tells me something.

 

As you point out, it's possible for a player rejected by one team to find success with another. But typically, if a guy doesn't interest his own team very much, and if he doesn't attract a whole lot of attention from other teams either, it's a mistake to expect a whole lot from him. Yes there are exceptions to this rule; with Kurt Warner being the most notable. But for every Kurt Warner, there are tens or hundreds of Bennie Andersons and Trey Teagues.

 

You point out the Giants were able to put together a decent line largely through signing Bills rejects, and giving them the good coaching of Jim McNally. That's great, but how many other times has this happened? How many other teams make it to the Super Bowl with offensive lines consisting of other teams' castoffs?

[krazykat]

Well one thing we DO know about Reyes is that he's not a penalty machine like Anderson.  Neither is Fowler for that matter, but Teague wasn't either.  And Reyes has the athleticism that Anderson only dreams of having.  And Fowler is a true center, Teague was not.  That IMHO is worth something.

 

Penalties don't move the ball. It's a good point but the question that needs to be answered is can this line blow opponents off the line and create holes for McGahee and protect our QB.

[stuckincincy]

In other words, Cleveland drafted a replacement for Fowler, and Carolina drafted a replacement for Reyes.  A year or two after the replacements had been added, the original players were let go or allowed to leave.  This is supposed to reassure me? It doesn't.  The fact Cleveland and Carolina felt the need to draft replacements for those players tells me something. 

 

721118[/snapback]

 

Occasionly, a team lets go of a decent player because they feel they are well-stocked at that position, have some younger players that look promising, or that for overall cap reasons a trade or cut becomes necessary. Also, what with roster limitations, clubs will be a bit thin at some positions in order to maintain others. Comprimises occur. Dice get rolled.

 

I think that Fowler and Reyes are an upgrade, but we'll have to wait and see if that's so.

[Orton's Arm]

Occasionly, a team lets go of a decent player because they feel they are well-stocked at that position, have some younger players that look promising, or that for overall cap reasons a trade or cut becomes necessary. Also, what with roster limitations, clubs will be a bit thin at some positions in order to maintain others. Comprimises occur. Dice get rolled.

I'll grant that. The Brad Johnson/Daunte Culpepper situation is a good example of what you're describing. Johnson had years of good play in front of him, yet the Vikings felt it necessary to draft his replacement and send Johnson on his way. But when that happened, Johnson attracted the attention of other teams in need of a good quarterback.

 

Fowler and Reyes apparently attracted little attention from other teams. If your own team isn't interested in you, and if nobody else has much interest in you either, odds are you're not a very good player. While there are certainly exceptions to this rule, I see no reason to begin with the assumption that Fowler and Reyes are such exceptions.

[stuckincincy]

I'll grant that.  The Brad Johnson/Daunte Culpepper situation is a good example of what you're describing.  Johnson had years of good play in front of him, yet the Vikings felt it necessary to draft his replacement and send Johnson on his way.  But when that happened, Johnson attracted the attention of other teams in need of a good quarterback. 

 

Fowler and Reyes apparently attracted little attention from other teams.  If your own team isn't interested in you, and if nobody else has much interest in you either, odds are you're not a very good player.  While there are certainly exceptions to this rule, I see no reason to begin with the assumption that Fowler and Reyes are such exceptions.

721333[/snapback]

 

Like I said, we have to wait and see. I made no assumptions regarding them.

 

Correct?

[BuffOrange]

Holcomb's Arm,

Agree with most everything you've said here, and also your lovely signature I might add.

 

The "team x had success with philosophy y in year z" just doesn't do a lot for me either. I'm sorry but the 2000 NFC may have been the worst conference in history; the Giants biggest competition was an immature Eagles team and the always playoff savy Denny Green Vikings. Even if that one fluke year did prove the organization was brilliant, then why didn't we hire Fassel?

 

One thing I don't agree with is that I don't think there's a blueprint formula for success ie drafting high, drafting low, 1st or 2nd tier FA's, whatever. The bottom line is finding value whether it be in the draft or FA. The Patriots if I'm not mistaken built their OL through 2nd tier FA's. Granted, that doesn't prove that it's the best way to go, it just worked for them since they're good at spotting underrated talent. The Bills have obviously failed under the same philosophy for years. The Trey Teague analogy is so perfect because it's a 100% lock that people were saying the exact same things when we acquired him "OMG Denver huge upgrade!". But you're right, there's not much reason to think these new guys will be better; the only reasoning you hear is the "they can't be worse than last year" routine. I was that guy talking about Wade Phillips in 2000; suffice to say I've learned my lesson and am no longer that guy, but obviously several are. Also, you're correct the Carolina running game stunk most of last year, which people don't realize.

[MikeSpeed]

Oh we're better.

Last year we were pathetic, and this year we're only going to be horrible.

 

[Orton's Arm]

Holcomb's Arm,

Agree with most everything you've said here, and also your lovely signature I might add. 

Any post that starts like this has got to be good!

 

I looked up New England's offensive line. Two of its projected starters did in fact arrive via free agency. Gorin was a 7th round pick for San Diego, and spent two years there (no starts) before heading to New England. Gorin has played in 31 games for New England, but has just 18 starts.

 

Russ Hochstein was a 5th round pick for the Bucs, and spent a year with Tampa (also no starts) before heading to New England. Hochstein has appeared in 48 games for New England, but has just ten starts.

 

The key facts to remember about Gorin and Hochstein are these:

- They didn't have any starts for their original teams. These guys weren't known commodities the way Bennie Anderson, Reyes, etc. all are.

- Gorin and Hochstein have mostly been backups for the Patriots anyway.

[Bill from NYC]

Any post that starts like this has got to be good! 

 

I looked up New England's offensive line.  Two of its projected starters did in fact arrive via free agency.  Gorin was a 7th round pick for San Diego, and spent two years there (no starts) before heading to New England.  Gorin has played in 31 games for New England, but has just 18 starts.

 

Russ Hochstein was a 5th round pick for the Bucs, and spent a year with Tampa (also no starts) before heading to New England.  Hochstein has appeared in 48 games for New England, but has just ten starts.

 

The key facts to remember about Gorin and Hochstein are these:

- They didn't have any starts for their original teams.  These guys weren't known commodities the way Bennie Anderson, Reyes, etc. all are. 

- Gorin and Hochstein have mostly been backups for the Patriots anyway.

721554[/snapback]

 

Light was a 2nd round pick and Mankins was a 1st round pick. In 99, they drafted a 1st round OC.

Does that count, or are we going off on an abstract tangent here that I am unable to comprehend?

[Orton's Arm]

Light was a 2nd round pick and Mankins was a 1st round pick. In 99, they drafted a 1st round OC.

  Does that count, or are we going off on an abstract tangent here that I am unable to comprehend?

I was thinking of pointing out that Matt Light was a second round pick, but you beat me to it! Certainly Light alone has been worth considerably more to the New England offensive line than Gorin and Hochstein put together. Light, Mankins, etc. are good examples of building an offensive line through first day draft picks--something the Bills should be doing too.

[TDRupp]

The O-line is definitely better.  Elite?  Probably not.

719899[/snapback]

 

Is it better? Probably but how much?

 

Name our best O lineman and them tell me if we even have a "good" line. They all might end up being "good" with Peters being very good. They might.

 

We still have a below average OL until they are not. Sounds stupid but it is true.