plenzmd1 Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 I have always been one to say spend more money on the line than anywhere else. But Ross Tucker, ex Bills OL, has a different take. Found it interesting, even if i do not agree with it. He says "only difference might be one to two plays a game, but I think that can be huge in terms of turnovers, sacks, momentum etc. What say you? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writ...ies1/index.html
SirPorl Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 Kind of hard to make plays as a QB if you are running for your life or constantly picking yourself up off the turf on every play. Kind of hard to have a good running attack if your line blows. Line folks are very important. Like every other position on the field, if you are good, you should get a tad more. Line is important on both sides of the ball. Gotta win the trench battles.
silvermike Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 I'm certainly inclined to agree with you, but then, I have to believe that Ross Tucker knows more than us. On the other hand, it's universally consistent that great line play leads to victories. So is it possible it's not the players, but the system? Guys getting to know how to work together? Being lucky? I have no idea.
Arkady Renko Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 Ross Tucker knows more than us, but other people who know more than us may disagree. 2 extra sacks doesn't sound like much, but that's 200% more. You can slice it a lot of different ways.
obie_wan Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 I have always been one to say spend more money on the line than anywhere else. But Ross Tucker, ex Bills OL, has a different take. Found it interesting, even if i do not agree with it. He says "only difference might be one to two plays a game, but I think that can be huge in terms of turnovers, sacks, momentum etc. What say you? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writ...ies1/index.html I'd say Ross Tucker has a heavily inflated sense of his ability as an OL. The logic goes - since he's not worth a whole lot and he's as good as these high riced guys (except for a play or two) how can they be paid multi- millions. Well - the flaw with his logic is Ross is not very good. Good OL players make your RBs and QB look a lot better.
dave mcbride Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 It's flawed logic. A slugger hits 40 homers; a decent hitter hits 20. That's 20 plays over 162 games and 600-700 plate appearances. A pitcher with a 4.00 ERA makes probably 2 or 3 more bad pitches a game (out of a 100+ pitches) than a pitcher with a 3.20 ERA. But I guarantee you that these marginal differences are the sorts of things that separate a 90 win team from a 72 win team. It's the same in football -- the teams are evenly matched, more or less, and so many of the games are decided by 7 points or less. Marginal differences matter.
4BillsintheBurgh Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 I'd like to hear what Shawn Alexander thinks of that logic. Not that Hutchison leaving caused all his woes, but it's got to be a major factor. I agree with Dave, even a marginal difference matters. Parity runs rampant in this league and any small advantage can separate a team. And if that upgrade also buys you more from other positions, you have to consider it.
eSJayDee Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 Look at it this way... If each linemen is worth 2 plays a game, & you've got let's just say 3 linemen that are "average" as opposed to "superior". That's 6 plays a game. You only have about 60 plays, so that's 10%. Granted, an individual lineman won't have the same impact as a QB or RB, but you turns 3 sacks into 3 good completions and 3 runs of no gain for 10 yds or so & that's a SIGNIFICANT difference in your offensive output, say 80 yds. That's the difference between a very below avg offense & a very above avg one. & likely equates to about a TD or so a game. How many games are decided by a TD or less? I'd say about 1/2, so conservatively, I'd say 3 good linemen are worth at least 4 victories / season. I'll concede that a linemen might not have the same impact as a CB, RB or QB, but their contribution IS important AND valuable. You've got the cap space, you gotta use it somewhere.
berndogg Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 I'd say Ross Tucker has a heavily inflated sense of his ability as an OL. The logic goes - since he's not worth a whole lot and he's as good as these high riced guys (except for a play or two) how can they be paid multi- millions. Well - the flaw with his logic is Ross is not very good. Good OL players make your RBs and QB look a lot better. I agree with that. He was a very mediocre player, so using himself as an example of where a better player wouldn't make a big difference automatically takes away from his argument. He's also looking too deep into it. These are the facts, a team whose O-line gives the qb time and opens holes for the rbs will win more games than a similar team whose o-line doesn't give the qb time and doesn't open holes for the rbs. Better O-linemen are better at giving the qbs time and opening up holes for the rbs. Pretty simple if you ask me.
apuszczalowski Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 The lines are important and can be a difference, but you don't have to have the best linemen to have a great line. You need guys who play well together (because the o-line, and the d-line are like 1 player on each side of the ball) The have to work as a team to be good. That doesn't mean all of your focus should just be on the lines to build a winner. Having a great o-line isn't going to mean sh*t if your QB can't throw, or your RB is slow, or you have WR's that can't catch. Right now the Bills o-line is good enough to win games and not cost them games, it could be better, but its not something they need to focus heavily on now, and trying to improve it more will not have as much of an effect if the Bills don't get better WR's. The only thing the Bills should be looking at for their o-line this year is some depth.
Recommended Posts