Feel this deserves a separate OLine thread

[Oaf]

(I'm no expert here. Just a student of the game, former player, that has watched each Bills snap this season. Initially a response to X-Era's recent thread)

While many consider our current line to have some upside, the majority of the players we have used are fringe NFL players and have not displayed any sort of "flash" beyond flashes of inconsistency. Shown below is the reviewal of those who played in 2009, each player's outlook for 2010, the implications of the 2010 outlook, and then recommendations/conclusion based on the implications for the optimal amount of change. A progressive (as opposed to conservative) approach is taken.

In my mind,
Hang has ranged between serviceable (read: Trey Teague) to slightly above serviceable. I believe this will be a constant.
Levitre is the only player on the line who has shown the capability to be brilliant at his position. Wood showed this to a limited degree but his leg has complicated his potential for an excellent 2010 campaign.
Scott joins Kiwi Mitchell as the two players that should never be in the starting lineup again.
Bell's only saving grace has been the play of Scott, he's merely been the lesser of two evils (plus he's got the injury excuse as well).
Butler's play has been solid, but with his tendency for injury (documented since the draft), he's been even less useful than Scott (and that's saying a lot).
Jury is out on Meredith. Certainly his breakdowns are the most justified because of his rawness and I've actually liked what I've seen. I don't know if he can or should start 2010 but he's a good developmental player that should stick around after the axe falls.
You could do worse (and slightly better) than Chambers in the reserve tackle spot. A worthy 1st or 2nd lineman off the bench as a stopgap. Miles ahead of McKinney.
Simmons came in as a stopgap player and has fulfilled his role with mediocre play in a situation designed for failure. Should not be a starter in 2010.
Jury obviously out on Incog (excited to see him play). Could be around in 2010 competing for a starting spot if he keeps his head on.In recap, I divide all the relevant Oliners into three categories:
Shown to be part of the answer
I feel players Levitre, Hangartner, and Chambers (reserve) are the players we have now that we can win with.

Jury is out OR have NOT shown that they are NOT part of the answer
The jury is out on Wood, Incog, Meredith. Wood belongs in the higher category if he can return and stay at full health. These are players who have not shown failure or have not shown culpable failure and may belong in the above or below categorization- we just don't know.

Have shown culpable failure and should not be counted on (with potential replacements to be sought out)
Counting on players such as Scott, Bell, Butler, McKinney, Simmons in any role incurs a great deal of risk as they have shown sufficient inadequacy in their roles. In an ideal world, these players will not be considered "the answer" in 2010 and replacements will be attained.
Note: I know there are a lot of Bell fans out there who'll put him in the "jury is out category" but in my mind he has shown enough to make me believe he'll never be in the top half of LTs in terms of consistency. He's got the talent, but like Scott, just has a strong tendency for mental breakdowns.



IMPLICATIONS:
- Between 4 players Hantgartner, Wood, Levitre, and Incog, I assert we have an interior set.
Seek: One capable backup, possibly two in the case of a Wood health setback or Incog departure

- Meredith should be in the competition at RT with FA/draft prospect to take over if/when Butler gets hurt. Low potential here that Butler gets beat outright.
Seek: One RT competitor

- LT is biggest area of concern.
Seek: HIGHEST caliber player via draft rounds 1/2 or 1st Tier-FA to A. start at LT or B. Force Bell to play at a highER level in order to play.

CONCLUSION: THREE additions: high player at LT, moderate player at RT, average player along interior. Make everyone not mentioned here walk.


Arguments for or against? Thanks for reading.

[Buddo]

Nice read, good post. No expert on it here either, but I think you make a good case. I do think that perhaps you are cutting a little too deep. We didn't have enough depth this year, and would essentially be going into a new season with about the same numbers again - not a good idea imho. There are too many STs roster spots that are wasted, that should be being taken up by a lineman or two - from both sides of the football.

[Oaf]

Nice read, good post. No expert on it here either, but I think you make a good case. I do think that perhaps you are cutting a little too deep. We didn't have enough depth this year, and would essentially be going into a new season with about the same numbers again - not a good idea imho. There are too many STs roster spots that are wasted, that should be being taken up by a lineman or two - from both sides of the football.
Thanks for the reply. It is indeed a fairly aggressive approach. We can certainly hope that this will fit the theme of the offseason in general. I feel that injuries have hidden the fact we have poor interior depth and poor prospects at T as it was beforehand (similar to how bad our starting LB lineup was anyways).

As stated, our interior starters actually look set, which is a good step. Three additions is not out of the question and if made correctly could be all that is necessary for the Oline to be set for the future. That is
1. An upgrade over McKinney backing up the interior starters Lev, Hang, and Wood/Incog.
2. Moderate RT to push Meredith such that either can excel if another Butler injury or replace him completely (Butler then serving as the interior depth?)
3. High caliber LT to start over Bell or to force Bell to play at a much more consistent level.

[YardRat]

Assuming we keep 8 linemen, I could live with New Stud at LT, Levitre, Hangartner, Wood, Incognito, Butler, Bell, and either Chambers/Meredith/Simmons/New Guy. Plus two on the PS.

LT is obviously a top priority.
I can see maybe two new guys, total, not including PS.
Don't think we necessarily need three, unless a draft pick or FA really rises to the top and manages to push one of the afore-mentioned out of a job.

Once we secure a LT, o-line priority drops way down the list IMO.

[X-Era]

(I'm no expert here. Just a student of the game, former player, that has watched each Bills snap this season. Initially a response to X-Era's recent thread)

While many consider our current line to have some upside, the majority of the players we have used are fringe NFL players and have not displayed any sort of "flash" beyond flashes of inconsistency. Shown below is the reviewal of those who played in 2009, each player's outlook for 2010, the implications of the 2010 outlook, and then recommendations/conclusion based on the implications for the optimal amount of change. A progressive (as opposed to conservative) approach is taken.

In my mind,
Hang has ranged between serviceable (read: Trey Teague) to slightly above serviceable. I believe this will be a constant.
Levitre is the only player on the line who has shown the capability to be brilliant at his position. Wood showed this to a limited degree but his leg has complicated his potential for an excellent 2010 campaign.
Scott joins Kiwi Mitchell as the two players that should never be in the starting lineup again.
Bell's only saving grace has been the play of Scott, he's merely been the lesser of two evils (plus he's got the injury excuse as well).
Butler's play has been solid, but with his tendency for injury (documented since the draft), he's been even less useful than Scott (and that's saying a lot).
Jury is out on Meredith. Certainly his breakdowns are the most justified because of his rawness and I've actually liked what I've seen. I don't know if he can or should start 2010 but he's a good developmental player that should stick around after the axe falls.
You could do worse (and slightly better) than Chambers in the reserve tackle spot. A worthy 1st or 2nd lineman off the bench as a stopgap. Miles ahead of McKinney.
Simmons came in as a stopgap player and has fulfilled his role with mediocre play in a situation designed for failure. Should not be a starter in 2010.
Jury obviously out on Incog (excited to see him play). Could be around in 2010 competing for a starting spot if he keeps his head on.In recap, I divide all the relevant Oliners into three categories:
Shown to be part of the answer
I feel players Levitre, Hangartner, and Chambers (reserve) are the players we have now that we can win with.

Jury is out OR have NOT shown that they are NOT part of the answer
The jury is out on Wood, Incog, Meredith. Wood belongs in the higher category if he can return and stay at full health. These are players who have not shown failure or have not shown culpable failure and may belong in the above or below categorization- we just don't know.

Have shown culpable failure and should not be counted on (with potential replacements to be sought out)
Counting on players such as Scott, Bell, Butler, McKinney, Simmons in any role incurs a great deal of risk as they have shown sufficient inadequacy in their roles. In an ideal world, these players will not be considered "the answer" in 2010 and replacements will be attained.
Note: I know there are a lot of Bell fans out there who'll put him in the "jury is out category" but in my mind he has shown enough to make me believe he'll never be in the top half of LTs in terms of consistency. He's got the talent, but like Scott, just has a strong tendency for mental breakdowns.



IMPLICATIONS:
- Between 4 players Hantgartner, Wood, Levitre, and Incog, I assert we have an interior set.
Seek: One capable backup, possibly two in the case of a Wood health setback or Incog departure

- Meredith should be in the competition at RT with FA/draft prospect to take over if/when Butler gets hurt. Low potential here that Butler gets beat outright.
Seek: One RT competitor

- LT is biggest area of concern.
Seek: HIGHEST caliber player via draft rounds 1/2 or 1st Tier-FA to A. start at LT or B. Force Bell to play at a highER level in order to play.

CONCLUSION: THREE additions: high player at LT, moderate player at RT, average player along interior. Make everyone not mentioned here walk.


Arguments for or against? Thanks for reading.

So, I just think its too harsh.

Most of these guys would not have started if we didn't have injuries. Scott, Meredith, Chambers all fit this situation. Had we not had the rash of injuries, these guys would still be green as the hills, Meredith might not even be here actually. But now, due to injury, each has seen plenty of playing time.

Bell is a guy who has intrigued us enough as a possible LT to give him that role. He looked like what he is this year, very raw. He made mental mistakes and lost some battles early. But I think he became much more sound until he got injured. Most raw LT's play raw for at least the first year when they start. They have to learn to play at the NFL speed and in NFL games... just the nature of the beast. So now a the end of the year, I think we can say that Bell can at least be a swing tackle and maybe push for a starting job. But he certainly could be a backup that's a bit better than the standard late round rookie or UDFA that we usually have.

As for Butler, I simply think hes injury prone. I also prefer bigger RT's more like Walker was. However, when healthy, Butler played OK, but also had some mistakes. I think he should be a G.

McKinney was a nice veteran addition who could start if you had an injury, thats what happened. I dont want him as a starter, but I like that kind of player as a backup.

Simmons, to me, looked pretty good. I liked his push, I liked his motor, and he held up pretty well against the pass. I really liked him and Id like to see him be a long term backup on our OL. I tried to see how long his contract was but couldnt find it.

Hangartner, Wood, and Levitre are all solid now IMO. Early they made mistakes, but I think this has more to do with growing as a unit than inabilities as individuals. I think, now, they are rock solid overall and should stay as our interior starters.

Incognito is a solid player from another team. I worry about stupid penalties, we will have to see how it plays out.


Now, having written all that. The simple questions should be this:

How much of what we saw from our OL men had to do with being shuffled around (no time ot Jell) and how much of it had to do with the individuals having inadequate ability?

IMO, jelling isnt just important, its huge. The outsome could have been completely different for Butler, and maybe guys like Meredith or Bell if they had been day one starters, took every snap from the same position, and the rest of the line didn't change.

But, my point was, at the start of training camp, we will have all these guys back, and will have a lot, of guys with potential, experience, and many that have shown they can play solid. Our next HC can then sift out the best of those and we will be much better off than we were at that same point in 2009.

And all of that is without adding a free agent or high round draftee into the mix... which I think is likely.

Maybe I should sum it by saying this: Dont throw so many away by evaluating them based on a year which they couldn't succeed.

[Jan Reimers]

Once we secure a LT, o-line priority drops way down the list IMO.
Totally agree. Draft a stud LT, let Butler and Bell battle for RT (Butler probably wins, with Bell as the swing OT backup). Leave this year's original interior intact. The other guys - veterans Simmons and Incognito, young guys Scott, Meredith,et. al. - fight for backup roles.

I think our O line, with a better LT, the return of Butler, Wood and Bell, and the maturation of the young guys, will be pretty good.

Other than LT, we need to use most of our draft picks, and FA dollars, on QB, DT, DE, LB, and WR (assuming Owens, Parrish, and perhaps Reed will be gone).

[mybills]

Why the hate for Mitchell?

[The Juice Is Loose]

Love the post. I think it shows that we need to make the O line our top priority. I just feel that everything will fall in line behind it.

If your QB has an 80 rating with a lousy line, he'll have a 90 rating with a great one.

If your RB can average 4.0ypc with what we have now, get a real line, that's more like 4.2-4.5ypc

If those things happen, all of a sudden we manage more time of possession, instead of 25 minutes per game, we can hold it for 35 minutes per game. A strong o line has to be at least 3-4 extra first downs per game. 40 seconds per play, as long as its not incomplete. Think about it!

So who does that help? The opponents defense is on the field, getting tired, wearing down. We have 2 potentially great backs to destroy them. Plus we'll probably add another. If we can run, we can play action pass. We can get Lee over the top as teams creap up.

If our defense is 15-20th overall in the league with a lousy offense, then by getting those extra first downs and that extra 10 minutes of clock per game, we would rise, even with the same players!

As you said, going after another experienced DT is a big FA priority. You know what you get, he'll at least be solid. Do you let Denney walk? I guess it depends on what think of Ellis and Maybin. Maybe we need to add a guy like Mark Anderson from Chicago as an extra pass rusher.

Then you head to draft, go OL OL OL! Maybe throw in a linebacker. We can get a decent addition at QB and let him compete with Brohm and Fitz. We go 9-7, lead the AFCE in rushing, and if our QB comes out next year we do whatever we gotta do to get him.

--I think the Jets are a prime example of what a strong running game can bring. Their QB play has been as bad as any team in the league, yet they are still alive because they have a strong O line and their RB's can run all day. If you think Thomas Jones is an all pro, your wrong. He's slow, he sucks. But the oline has him going to the pro bowl. And they have the Jets competing for a wildcard spot in mid december.

[billistic]

- Between 4 players Hantgartner, Wood, Levitre, and Incog, I assert we have an interior set.
Arguments for or against? Thanks for reading.

My conclusions based upon the 13 nauseating games I watched, and rewatched:

All the Bills have for sure going into 2010 is:

A mediocre center (Hangartner), two decent OGs (Levitre, Butler), another good-looking OG prospect (Eric Wood, whose recovery is problematic). Who knows what Incognito may be (anyway, he's one roid-rant away from a long term suspension)? They for sure have no OTs. [Butler didn't get much time at RT, and looked very shaky out there.] Their "depth" is bottom of the barrel.

The Bills need two serviceable tackles, through draft and/or free agency (or trade).

[Pinkerton Security]

(I'm no expert here. Just a student of the game, former player, that has watched each Bills snap this season. Initially a response to X-Era's recent thread)

While many consider our current line to have some upside, the majority of the players we have used are fringe NFL players and have not displayed any sort of "flash" beyond flashes of inconsistency. Shown below is the reviewal of those who played in 2009, each player's outlook for 2010, the implications of the 2010 outlook, and then recommendations/conclusion based on the implications for the optimal amount of change. A progressive (as opposed to conservative) approach is taken.

In my mind,
Hang has ranged between serviceable (read: Trey Teague) to slightly above serviceable. I believe this will be a constant.
Levitre is the only player on the line who has shown the capability to be brilliant at his position. Wood showed this to a limited degree but his leg has complicated his potential for an excellent 2010 campaign.
Scott joins Kiwi Mitchell as the two players that should never be in the starting lineup again.
Bell's only saving grace has been the play of Scott, he's merely been the lesser of two evils (plus he's got the injury excuse as well).
Butler's play has been solid, but with his tendency for injury (documented since the draft), he's been even less useful than Scott (and that's saying a lot).
Jury is out on Meredith. Certainly his breakdowns are the most justified because of his rawness and I've actually liked what I've seen. I don't know if he can or should start 2010 but he's a good developmental player that should stick around after the axe falls.
You could do worse (and slightly better) than Chambers in the reserve tackle spot. A worthy 1st or 2nd lineman off the bench as a stopgap. Miles ahead of McKinney.
Simmons came in as a stopgap player and has fulfilled his role with mediocre play in a situation designed for failure. Should not be a starter in 2010.
Jury obviously out on Incog (excited to see him play). Could be around in 2010 competing for a starting spot if he keeps his head on.In recap, I divide all the relevant Oliners into three categories:
Shown to be part of the answer
I feel players Levitre, Hangartner, and Chambers (reserve) are the players we have now that we can win with.

Jury is out OR have NOT shown that they are NOT part of the answer
The jury is out on Wood, Incog, Meredith. Wood belongs in the higher category if he can return and stay at full health. These are players who have not shown failure or have not shown culpable failure and may belong in the above or below categorization- we just don't know.

Have shown culpable failure and should not be counted on (with potential replacements to be sought out)
Counting on players such as Scott, Bell, Butler, McKinney, Simmons in any role incurs a great deal of risk as they have shown sufficient inadequacy in their roles. In an ideal world, these players will not be considered "the answer" in 2010 and replacements will be attained.
Note: I know there are a lot of Bell fans out there who'll put him in the "jury is out category" but in my mind he has shown enough to make me believe he'll never be in the top half of LTs in terms of consistency. He's got the talent, but like Scott, just has a strong tendency for mental breakdowns.



IMPLICATIONS:
- Between 4 players Hantgartner, Wood, Levitre, and Incog, I assert we have an interior set.
Seek: One capable backup, possibly two in the case of a Wood health setback or Incog departure

- Meredith should be in the competition at RT with FA/draft prospect to take over if/when Butler gets hurt. Low potential here that Butler gets beat outright.
Seek: One RT competitor

- LT is biggest area of concern.
Seek: HIGHEST caliber player via draft rounds 1/2 or 1st Tier-FA to A. start at LT or B. Force Bell to play at a highER level in order to play.

CONCLUSION: THREE additions: high player at LT, moderate player at RT, average player along interior. Make everyone not mentioned here walk.


Arguments for or against? Thanks for reading.

I also agree with pretty much all your assessments, and I am also no expert on technique or anything, just from watching the games. Players like Scott and McKinney definitely stick out as people who should never be counted on to play. Bell was honestly that way as well this year but I'd like to keep him around to see if he can improve his strength, because to me his strength at the POA is just not there and so he is being physically overmatched.

[Prov401]

(I'm no expert here. Just a student of the game, former player, that has watched each Bills snap this season. Initially a response to X-Era's recent thread)

While many consider our current line to have some upside, the majority of the players we have used are fringe NFL players and have not displayed any sort of "flash" beyond flashes of inconsistency. Shown below is the reviewal of those who played in 2009, each player's outlook for 2010, the implications of the 2010 outlook, and then recommendations/conclusion based on the implications for the optimal amount of change. A progressive (as opposed to conservative) approach is taken.

In my mind,

Hang has ranged between serviceable (read: Trey Teague) to slightly above serviceable. I believe this will be a constant.
Levitre is the only player on the line who has shown the capability to be brilliant at his position. Wood showed this to a limited degree but his leg has complicated his potential for an excellent 2010 campaign.
Scott joins Kiwi Mitchell as the two players that should never be in the starting lineup again.
Bell's only saving grace has been the play of Scott, he's merely been the lesser of two evils (plus he's got the injury excuse as well).
Butler's play has been solid, but with his tendency for injury (documented since the draft), he's been even less useful than Scott (and that's saying a lot).
Jury is out on Meredith. Certainly his breakdowns are the most justified because of his rawness and I've actually liked what I've seen. I don't know if he can or should start 2010 but he's a good developmental player that should stick around after the axe falls.
You could do worse (and slightly better) than Chambers in the reserve tackle spot. A worthy 1st or 2nd lineman off the bench as a stopgap. Miles ahead of McKinney.
Simmons came in as a stopgap player and has fulfilled his role with mediocre play in a situation designed for failure. Should not be a starter in 2010.
Jury obviously out on Incog (excited to see him play). Could be around in 2010 competing for a starting spot if he keeps his head on.In recap, I divide all the relevant Oliners into three categories:
Shown to be part of the answer
I feel players Levitre, Hangartner, and Chambers (reserve) are the players we have now that we can win with.

Jury is out OR have NOT shown that they are NOT part of the answer
The jury is out on Wood, Incog, Meredith. Wood belongs in the higher category if he can return and stay at full health. These are players who have not shown failure or have not shown culpable failure and may belong in the above or below categorization- we just don't know.

Have shown culpable failure and should not be counted on (with potential replacements to be sought out)
Counting on players such as Scott, Bell, Butler, McKinney, Simmons in any role incurs a great deal of risk as they have shown sufficient inadequacy in their roles. In an ideal world, these players will not be considered "the answer" in 2010 and replacements will be attained.
Note: I know there are a lot of Bell fans out there who'll put him in the "jury is out category" but in my mind he has shown enough to make me believe he'll never be in the top half of LTs in terms of consistency. He's got the talent, but like Scott, just has a strong tendency for mental breakdowns.



IMPLICATIONS:
- Between 4 players Hantgartner, Wood, Levitre, and Incog, I assert we have an interior set.
Seek: One capable backup, possibly two in the case of a Wood health setback or Incog departure

- Meredith should be in the competition at RT with FA/draft prospect to take over if/when Butler gets hurt. Low potential here that Butler gets beat outright.
Seek: One RT competitor

- LT is biggest area of concern.
Seek: HIGHEST caliber player via draft rounds 1/2 or 1st Tier-FA to A. start at LT or B. Force Bell to play at a highER level in order to play.

CONCLUSION: THREE additions: high player at LT, moderate player at RT, average player along interior. Make everyone not mentioned here walk.


Arguments for or against? Thanks for reading.

Good post. Just one thing.

"Wood showed this to a limited degree"...In reference to you saying Levitre has been the only player to show the capability to be brilliant at his position. IMO, before breaking his leg, Wood had the brightest future ahead of him, and was outplaying everybody on the O-Line.

[billistic]

Good post. Just one thing.

"Wood showed this to a limited degree"...In reference to you saying Levitre has been the only player to show the capability to be brilliant at his position. IMO, before breaking his leg, Wood had the brightest future ahead of him, and was outplaying everybody on the O-Line.

From week one, they all took turns killing offensive plays, including Wood. I guess by now it's an axiom among Bills fans that Eric Wood "has a bright future", but he left my socks on.

I saw Tony Boselli's rookie year: He knocked my socks off. Not so much Andy or Eric. They may turn out just fine, but...

[EDS]

Love the post. I think it shows that we need to make the O line our top priority. I --I think the Jets are a prime example of what a strong running game can bring. Their QB play has been as bad as any team in the league, yet they are still alive because they have a strong O line and their RB's can run all day. If you think Thomas Jones is an all pro, your wrong. He's slow, he sucks. But the oline has him going to the pro bowl. And they have the Jets competing for a wildcard spot in mid december.

I am baffled at how you can claim that Thomas Jones sucks. He obviously isn't Adrian Peterson or Chris Johnson, but he is a legit starting caliber veteran tailback. He but up two 1200+ yard season before even coming to the Jets.

The Jets definitely benefit from a good running game. They also have one of the top defenses in the NFL, which doesn't hurt.

[Pinkerton Security]

I am baffled at how you can claim that Thomas Jones sucks. He obviously isn't Adrian Peterson or Chris Johnson, but he is a legit starting caliber veteran tailback. He but up two 1200+ yard season before even coming to the Jets.

The Jets definitely benefit from a good running game. They also have one of the top defenses in the NFL, which doesn't hurt.

Thomas Jones doesnt suck, not even close. Hes a very good RB, might even be better than either of our 2 RB's, though if we had their O-line it might be a little different.

[EDS]

Thomas Jones doesnt suck, not even close. Hes a very good RB, might even be better than either of our 2 RB's, though if we had their O-line it might be a little different.

He has accomplished things with two different franchises - so both at Chicago and with the Jets - that neither of our running backs have accomplished (i.e., rush for over 1200 yards in a season). His consistency is also something to consider, 5 straight years of over 1100 yards.

[Prov401]

From week one, they all took turns killing offensive plays, including Wood. I guess by now it's an axiom among Bills fans that Eric Wood "has a bright future", but he left my socks on.

I saw Tony Boselli's rookie year: He knocked my socks off. Not so much Andy or Eric. They may turn out just fine, but...

Comparing Boselli to anybody is rediculous. He was simply the greatest LT ever. In 7 years, he allowed 11 sacks. That's less than 1.5 sacks a year. Comparing anybody to him is truly unreasonable, and I had no intentions of Wood, Levitre, etc. of being anywhere near the calibre of player that Boselli was. Bad comparison.

Anyways, I recall 2 bad games from Wood this year, that is all. The kid man-handled a few games for us this year, and that's a fact. He wasn't going to make a pro-bowl or anything, so I guess that's where he may have left your socks on. I for one didn't expect him to take my socks off. Bottom line, Wood did/hopefully does, have a great future ahead of him.

[jamze132]

So glad the DJ ere is about to be over...

Maybe we can get some competent coaches in here who understand that games are won AND lost in the trenches.