Peter Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 How good is our offensive line? Answer: Not very good. I know that many of you on this board have an inflated opinion of our offensive line (in the context of evaluating our starting running back). The fact remains that we were tied for 25th in the league in sacks allowed (even though we have a pretty mobile QB) and were 27th in the league in rushing. Let's not kid ourselves. If this team is going to be successful, we have to upgrade the offensive line (as well as the defensive line).
Tortured Soul Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 How good is our offensive line? Answer: Not very good. I know that many of you on this board have an inflated opinion of our offensive line (in the context of evaluating our starting running back). The fact remains that we were tied for 25th in the league in sacks allowed (even though we have a pretty mobile QB) and were 27th in the league in rushing. Let's not kid ourselves. If this team is going to be successful, we have to upgrade the offensive line (as well as the defensive line). You do need to break those numbers down pre-bye and post-bye. GS on this board is that we need to upgrade the line. The only questions is if that is Priority 1, 2, or 3.
AJ1 Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 You do need to break those numbers down pre-bye and post-bye. GS on this board is that we need to upgrade the line. The only questions is if that is Priority 1, 2, or 3. Priority number one, for my money, is sign a DT or LB who can penetrate the opposing backfield. Perferrably both. LF doesn't fill the bill in the LB category.
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 Our oline is bad outside of jason peters. Honestly it's not enough games yet to judge pennington at rt, but the inside is horribly weak. While watching the ravens game I have never seen guards get continually blown off the ball and knocked on their ass 5 yards backwards like Mike Gandy and Duke Preston managed to do. There's also a reason we rarely ever try running up the middle or qb sneaks on 3rd and short. Melvin Fowler and above mentioned guards do not get any kind of push. For all the progress Losman has made and yes he has made progress, we were still 29th in offensive yardage, 23rd in points scored, 25th in passing and 27th in rushing. More of this can be attributed to inadequate line play then skill position players.
The Big Cat Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 Our oline is bad outside of jason peters. Honestly it's not enough games yet to judge pennington at rt, but the inside is horribly weak. While watching the ravens game I have never seen guards get continually blown off the ball and knocked on their ass 5 yards backwards like Mike Gandy and Duke Preston managed to do. There's also a reason we rarely ever try running up the middle or qb sneaks on 3rd and short. Melvin Fowler and above mentioned guards do not get any kind of push. For all the progress Losman has made and yes he has made progress, we were still 29th in offensive yardage, 23rd in points scored, 25th in passing and 27th in rushing. More of this can be attributed to inadequate line play then skill position players. I'm still not sure it's fair to judge them based on their performance against Baltimore- a team which has continually embarassed opposing offenses, especially in the trenches. But I think any one who argues that an insufficient to servicable line will best a dominant one is delirious. Improvments are necessary to become a championship team.
34-78-83 Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 Fowler is light but is too valuable to lose as an intelligent and quick lineman and also did a great job post-bye with the line calls as the Bills were in proper position for pass protection against some very good defenses. I think that adding some beef and skill at atleast one, if not both Guard positions would suit this line well.
R. Rich Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 Priority number one, for my money, is sign a DT or LB who can penetrate the opposing backfield. Perferrably both. LF doesn't fill the bill in the LB category. A LB that can tackle (maybe, just maybe, even @ or behind the line of scrimmage) would be fine by me.
Beerball Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 How good is our offensive line? Answer: Not very good. I know that many of you on this board have an inflated opinion of our offensive line (in the context of evaluating our starting running back). The fact remains that we were tied for 25th in the league in sacks allowed (even though we have a pretty mobile QB) and were 27th in the league in rushing. Let's not kid ourselves. If this team is going to be successful, we have to upgrade the offensive line (as well as the defensive line). While we do need to improve the line, particularily at both guard positions...JP may be mobile, but he and the coaches caused some of those sacks. At least once a game everyone but JP knew it was time to get rid of the ball (after he had time to scan the field) and he would take a sack. His mobility was taken away from him, particularily early in the season. The coaches wanted him in the pocket and that's where he stayed for the most part. So, take some of those sacks off the O-lines shoulders. You can also take a few away based on missed blitz pick-ups by the RB (Willis). He improved this, but at least 2-3 can be attributed to him.
marauderswr80 Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 The OL is ok......... Not great, yet not bad, id say they are in the middle! They have to shore up the RG spot and maybe the center spot. Its still open as to whether Pennington is the answer at RT, although played well for a rookie, I think bringing in a RT to compete with Pennington would be smart.... The OL needs work thats for sure, and I think the front office sees that!
Bill from NYC Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 While we do need to improve the line, particularily at both guard positions...JP may be mobile, but he and the coaches caused some of those sacks. At least once a game everyone but JP knew it was time to get rid of the ball (after he had time to scan the field) and he would take a sack. His mobility was taken away from him, particularily early in the season. The coaches wanted him in the pocket and that's where he stayed for the most part. So, take some of those sacks off the O-lines shoulders. You can also take a few away based on missed blitz pick-ups by the RB (Willis). He improved this, but at least 2-3 can be attributed to him. You are right, but it is more of course than just sacks. We need some brutal OGs who provide running room. This would help JP and even the defense, who would be more rested. It would also cause DBs to cheat a little and take some heat off the receiving corps. The Bills needs are very basic imo.....Do a better job of running the football and stopping the run.
Beerball Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 A LB that can tackle (maybe, just maybe, even @ or behind the line of scrimmage) would be fine by me. I am not sure that this is allowed in the cover 2. I'll do some research and get back to you.
apuszczalowski Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 You do need to break those numbers down pre-bye and post-bye. GS on this board is that we need to upgrade the line. The only questions is if that is Priority 1, 2, or 3. Exactly, If you watch the games after the bye, you definitly see an improvement, and less sacks Its not a dominant line, but it isn't as horrible as it once was. Baltimore has a dominant defence and d-line, so to judge Buffalos young and new o-line against them is not exactly fair. Its like comparing a Corvette to Ralphs Taurus. The Baltimore line is the corvette, top of the line and very good, and while Ralphs Taurus is dependable and decent, its going to get killed by the corvette
apuszczalowski Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 They have to shore up the RG spot and maybe the center spot. Its still open as to whether Pennington is the answer at RT, although played well for a rookie, I think bringing in a RT to compete with Pennington would be smart.... I think the problem right now is the entire right side. Fowler might not be a Pro Bowler, but he is good enough, the Bills just need more experience on that right side. Some competition at RT and RG won't hurt next season, too bad Reyes didn't have a falling out with the coaching staff, that could have been one less spot to worry about
The Big Cat Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 I think the problem right now is the entire right side. Fowler might not be a Pro Bowler, but he is good enough, the Bills just need more experience on that right side. Some competition at RT and RG won't hurt next season, too bad Reyes didn't have a falling out with the coaching staff, that could have been one less spot to worry about I like Fowler and I have issues with bagging him and other OL misfits for chemistry's sake. Barring injuries I think we can expect to see basically the same line next year with an improvment at RG and that's it. Peters- he's in Gandy- referred to by JP as the leader of the bunch rendering him non-expendable Fowler- very smart and wiley (and has established a chess playing raport with JP) Pennington- will experience his big rookie to second year leap and with his size I think that could be very promising. So major upgrades to the line, in my opinion, are neither evident or neccesary. Expect to see a couple of mid-rate inside guys but aside from that, I for one, hope to see some familiar faces come September.
apuszczalowski Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 I like Fowler and I have issues with bagging him and other OL misfits for chemistry's sake. Barring injuries I think we can expect to see basically the same line next year with an improvment at RG and that's it. Peters- he's in Gandy- referred to by JP as the leader of the bunch rendering him non-expendable Fowler- very smart and wiley (and has established a chess playing raport with JP) Pennington- will experience his big rookie to second year leap and with his size I think that could be very promising. So major upgrades to the line, in my opinion, are neither evident or neccesary. Expect to see a couple of mid-rate inside guys but aside from that, I for one, hope to see some familiar faces come September. This has been my exact feeling on the oline too, and as I said, if only Reyes worked out, the Bills would have a pretty good line next season. Of course I'm not against bringing in competition for any position on the line, if not to only push the existing guys
The Big Cat Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 This has been my exact feeling on the oline too, and as I said, if only Reyes worked out, the Bills would have a pretty good line next season. Of course I'm not against bringing in competition for any position on the line, if not to only push the existing guys
Boatdrinks Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 How good is our offensive line? Answer: Not very good. I know that many of you on this board have an inflated opinion of our offensive line (in the context of evaluating our starting running back). The fact remains that we were tied for 25th in the league in sacks allowed (even though we have a pretty mobile QB) and were 27th in the league in rushing. Let's not kid ourselves. If this team is going to be successful, we have to upgrade the offensive line (as well as the defensive line). Agreed. I'd put us in the bottom 8 of the league. I mean, for as huge a part of our 90's success that the O line was, many seem to have forgotten. Perhaps we've gotten numb to it as fans because it has been ignored by team management for so long. We've drafted exactly one pro bowl lineman since the '87 draft. If we want to see this team rise back to playoff status a major upgrade is needed here. I don't think it's a coincidence that our Oline steadily declined with the departures of Bill Polian, John Butler, and AJ Smith. Polian and Smith have been very successful elsewhere as well. We have wallowed in mediocrity since. Perhaps it is financial. I read an interesting article in SI about how the OT position had the biggest salary jump when free agency began in '93. Most of our FA additions on the OL have one common denominator- they've been "cheap". We'll find out in February if we're serious shoppers or just scraping the bargain bin.
JStranger76 Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 I for one refuse to drink the kool-aid you guys are chugging. The minimum improvement I would be satisfied with would be a serious upgrade at RG ( Deilman or L. Davis ) leaving a battle between Fowler and Preston at C. I like Fowler actually, and don't know if Preston although bigger, is any stronger, would be worth looking into. That scenario would I guess include the re-signing of Gandy ( not great, not the end of the world ). My dream scenario can be seen in my signature: Steinbach at LG with a 1st day pick at RG!!!!!!!!! I'll drink to that!!!!!!
apuszczalowski Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 I for one refuse to drink the kool-aid you guys are chugging. The minimum improvement I would be satisfied with would be a serious upgrade at RG ( Deilman or L. Davis ) leaving a battle between Fowler and Preston at C. I like Fowler actually, and don't know if Preston although bigger, is any stronger, would be worth looking into. That scenario would I guess include the re-signing of Gandy ( not great, not the end of the world ). My dream scenario can be seen in my signature: Steinbach at LG with a 1st day pick at RG!!!!!!!!! I'll drink to that!!!!!! How is eveyone else chugging the "Kool-Aid"? Thats pretty much what most are saying. All you said was to definitly replace Preston at guard and have him challenge at C (which I doubt will happen since they haven't tried it already, and they decided to try him at guard to get him in the line-up. The key is the line is still very young (and developing) so given time to gel and develop, they could be very good.
Fan in San Diego Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 Exactly, If you watch the games after the bye, you definitly see an improvement, and less sacks Its not a dominant line, but it isn't as horrible as it once was. Baltimore has a dominant defence and d-line, so to judge Buffalos young and new o-line against them is not exactly fair. Its like comparing a Corvette to Ralphs Taurus. The Baltimore line is the corvette, top of the line and very good, and while Ralphs Taurus is dependable and decent, its going to get killed by the corvette Anyone have the stats for the OL ranked after the bye. That would be some very interesting stats.
Recommended Posts