Blocking out the OL Critics

[Joebuffalowins]

http://www.buffalowins.com/buffalo-b...e-critics.html

[OpIv37]

With the widely inconsistent Demetress Bell shipped off and young depth brought in through the draft, how anyone can truly look at this team and say that they’ve somehow magically become worse is beyond me.

If I had read this before yesterday's game, I would have agreed. The interior of our line is solid. We have some questions at T, but let's face it, we weren't exactly great at T last year either and we managed. You could argue that there might be a drop-off between Bell and Glenn just because of experience, but it won't take Glenn long to catch up, and right now he definitely looks like a more talented player than Bell.

However, all of that is on paper. We all saw what happened on the field last night. The OL was pretty damn bad. And, as the article states, the 2004 line that sucked in preseason sucked in the regular season as well.

More importantly, the bigger problem was Fitz. On the first sack by Kerrigan, the RT initially forced Kerrigan wide and he ended up 3 or 4 steps behind Fitz. But, Fitz never made a decision and Kerrigan was able to come back and catch him. And we all saw how Fitz threw when he was facing pressure- all of his passes sailed over the heads of the intended target. This isn't really the OL's fault and it's an unfair expectation, but Fitz is going to struggle unless they are damn near perfect.

[TigerJ]

I could only listen to the game, but ddaryl did a thread based on his rewatch of the plays in which Cordy Glenn played left tackle. Apart from his one false start penalty, accordint to ddaryl's assessment Glenn was just about flawless in his play. http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/sho...n-play-by-play

On the right hand side we need to remember that Erik Pears has been recovering from a groin strain. The Bills clearly think quite highly of him, and if he can get and stay healthy, I'm pretty comfortable think he'll be fine at right tackle. I haven't seen any reports on Hairston's play, and behind Hairston, I think the depth is very much in question. The guys they have are young and raw. With more than one injury to starters at tackle and this team will be hurting, but when you've had a complete lack of depth, it takes a little time to build it. Next year, with everyone having a little more experience, I think we'll feel more secure about the depth at tackle.

[kingJofNYC]

Chan said they went with man blocking yesterday, didn't really have any protection in place if that was the case. Skins blitzed a lot, which is good, straighten **** out over the next few weeks.

[zone]

If I had read this before yesterday's game, I would have agreed. The interior of our line is solid. We have some questions at T, but let's face it, we weren't exactly great at T last year either and we managed. You could argue that there might be a drop-off between Bell and Glenn just because of experience, but it won't take Glenn long to catch up, and right now he definitely looks like a more talented player than Bell.

However, all of that is on paper. We all saw what happened on the field last night. The OL was pretty damn bad. And, as the article states, the 2004 line that sucked in preseason sucked in the regular season as well.

More importantly, the bigger problem was Fitz. On the first sack by Kerrigan, the RT initially forced Kerrigan wide and he ended up 3 or 4 steps behind Fitz. But, Fitz never made a decision and Kerrigan was able to come back and catch him. And we all saw how Fitz threw when he was facing pressure- all of his passes sailed over the heads of the intended target. This isn't really the OL's fault and it's an unfair expectation, but Fitz is going to struggle unless they are damn near perfect.

The Bills line ranked in the top 10 last year and arguably in the top 5 and that was with the various injuries. We did a little better then "managed" and some of that had to do with Fitz and his quick decisions.

Face it they used this game to take some live pad hits and try out some no huddle improvising, it was a glorified practice and yea it was sloppy but it in no way will resemble the product that we will see on the field come week 1.

[cookie G]

http://www.buffalowins.com/buffalo-b...e-critics.html

The author started out with a good premise, evaluating by watching, then failed to follow his own advice. The remainder of the article was basically, "we gave up 23 sacks, therefore the line is really good"

Well, yeah and no. Watch them again. Watch last nights game, it's pretty typical of the line play from last year.

In 14 attempts, I don't think Fitz held the ball for more than 3 seconds once. I think I counted about 4 times where he could have held the ball for as long as 3 seconds.

I'm not sure I can remember a time when Bledsoe passed in under 3 seconds. In this offense, he could have had triple digit sacks.

It is what it is. 2 different types of QB's, 2 different offenses.

What they are pretty good at is not letting a pass rusher get a clean shot at the QB. (except for last night). That means they can at least get in someone's way for a second or 2.

Wood and Levitre are very good. Glenn has potential. Pears can get in a DE's way for a second or two. Hairston is only in his second year and may come on. That doesn't make them horrible, but if they aren't the Saints oline or the Pats Oline.

[kishoph]

http://footballoutsiders.com/under-p...under-pressure

[DraftBoy]

The author started out with a good premise, evaluating by watching, then failed to follow his own advice. The remainder of the article was basically, "we gave up 23 sacks, therefore the line is really good"

Well, yeah and no. Watch them again. Watch last nights game, it's pretty typical of the line play from last year.

In 14 attempts, I don't think Fitz held the ball for more than 3 seconds once. I think I counted about 4 times where he could have held the ball for as long as 3 seconds.

I'm not sure I can remember a time when Bledsoe passed in under 3 seconds. In this offense, he could have had triple digit sacks.

It is what it is. 2 different types of QB's, 2 different offenses.

What they are pretty good at is not letting a pass rusher get a clean shot at the QB. (except for last night). That means they can at least get in someone's way for a second or 2.

Wood and Levitre are very good. Glenn has potential. Pears can get in a DE's way for a second or two. Hairston is only in his second year and may come on. That doesn't make them horrible, but if they aren't the Saints oline or the Pats Oline.

Bingo.

[YardRat]

The offensive line of '11 (and maybe '12) are the equivalent of the defensive secondary of '09 and '10. The stats may show that they are 'good', but the reality is the overall talent still isn't there yet and there are other factors involved that lead to the stat line other than ability.

[superbills]

The author started out with a good premise, evaluating by watching, then failed to follow his own advice. The remainder of the article was basically, "we gave up 23 sacks, therefore the line is really good"

Well, yeah and no. Watch them again. Watch last nights game, it's pretty typical of the line play from last year.

In 14 attempts, I don't think Fitz held the ball for more than 3 seconds once. I think I counted about 4 times where he could have held the ball for as long as 3 seconds.

I'm not sure I can remember a time when Bledsoe passed in under 3 seconds. In this offense, he could have had triple digit sacks.

It is what it is. 2 different types of QB's, 2 different offenses.

What they are pretty good at is not letting a pass rusher get a clean shot at the QB. (except for last night). That means they can at least get in someone's way for a second or 2.

Wood and Levitre are very good. Glenn has potential. Pears can get in a DE's way for a second or two. Hairston is only in his second year and may come on. That doesn't make them horrible, but if they aren't the Saints oline or the Pats Oline.

And if this is true, then what's the sense of drafting a guy like Graham for? Regardless of his speed, Fitz is never going to have enough time to wait for TJ to get down-field. They'll call those plays, but he'll be checking down every time. Not to mention, if you're protection doesn't hold, it makes it that much more difficult to run play-action plays. You need that extra second or two for the QB to make the ball fake and then set himself in the pocket.

Committing to a quick-strike offense because that's your favored scheme is one thing. However, I think for too long we've been using this scheme to make up for the fact that the o-line cannot do its job effectively and our offense's ability to adjust suffers greatly because of that.