NoCalMike Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Today, against Houston, we often saw Ramsey eat bullets from the D-lineman or linebackers on Houston's squad. I don't want to see a young QB's career end shortly because we can't protect him good enough. We need to improve the QB protection, or at least be more consistent about it before it really bites us in the ***. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 I think Ramsey was hit about five times in the whole game. That's a pretty well blocked game. We need to realize what our real issues on this team are before it kills us. Our offensive line has been good enough for us to win games. It certainly hasn't been responsible for a loss and though it has had terrible moments, largely, the line has done enough for this team to be successful. Where we are struggling is in pressuring the QB though we are amazingly fairly well rated in this category. We get such inconsistent pressure on the opposition QB with our front people it actually weakens our linebackers and secondary in the process. If we did nothing to our offensive line but added a legitimate double-digit sack man on the outside of the defensive line, we'd win four more games because of it. Look at Vonnie Holliday or KGB to figure in at some point in this offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 I agree with everything Art had to say. Our offense has really played well the last few weeks. I think we can be just fine on the offensive side without adding anybody. Sure another wr would be nice or another guard, but I think the team should focus on getting a de or/and a dt. The key is stability. I am really curious on what this team will look like with a staff that has been here for more than 1 year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 With the exception of the Eagles game I haven't really had a chance to catch a lot of Redskins games lately so I'll have to take your word for it Art. What I did see against the Eagles though wasn't very encouraging and seems to be in stark contrast to what you're suggesting. Some of the hits Ramsey took in that game were downright scary and the fact that he somehow managed to throw 3 TDs seem more of a testament to his toughness than improved play of our line. The pocket constantly collapsed we weren't really able to block anybody. If we want to be competitive we desperately need an upgrade at both Guard positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 23, 2002 Author Share Posted December 23, 2002 Well overall this season when going against better teams, the pocket protection has been downright scary. Remember against NO and Green Bay, Ramey was running for his life on every other snap....Of course this is why it would have been much nicer to see Ramsey start the season once he was put in against Tennessee.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Laurent, The Eagles spoke of how little they hit Ramsey and sacked him as the most disappointing thing about last weeks game. People here seem to think every hit is 10 when Ramsey takes one. It's stunning really. The Redskins offensive line only gave up one sack last week to the Eagles. The other was on a running back. Quarterbacks are going to be hit in this league. It's just going to happen. Our line against the Eagles actually did a terrible job run blocking as compared to pass blocking, which was fair. But, again, I didn't say the offensive line was a strength. I said it's been good enough for the most part that the real weaknesses must be addressed. We lost to the Eagles, but, largely because we kept making stupid plays and turning the ball over. Same with the Giants, and the pass blocking in that game was awful for Wuerffel but much better for Ramsey. The Redskins are improving as an offense in general. This includes the line. Ramsey has only been sacked three times in his last three games which totals 94 pass attempts. Wuerffel was sacked six times in his three games, with five coming against the Giants, and it was ugly there. Matthews was sacked five times in his previous three games. In the last eight games we've only given up 14 sacks. In the seven before that we surrendered 23. The team and the line is improving, though, of the 23 most were on Ramsey being slow with the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Originally posted by NoCalMike Well overall this season when going against better teams, the pocket protection has been downright scary. Remember against NO and Green Bay, Ramey was running for his life on every other snap....Of course this is why it would have been much nicer to see Ramsey start the season once he was put in against Tennessee.... This simply is untrue. As I have broken down, Ramsey was TOUCHED seven total times in three quarters against the Saints. That included the sacks. And that included four terrible plays by Samuels, who at the time was the worst lineman we had. He's improved greatly and the remaining pressure is coming from the inside where it is always going to come on this team when Samuels is healthy. The fourth quarter of the Saints game was brutal to be sure. But, that was a loss on Ramsey's rookie learning curve and a horrid special teams performance. Against the Packers the line gave Ramsey a ton of time to step and throw and he kept missing. He was sacked a lot, again, because he wouldn't throw the ball out of there. Much of it was on him and again, Samuels was horrible until he was pulled for Sulfsted. Our biggest weakness as a team is we can not generate consistent pressure from the defensive line and this weakness diminishes the whole of the defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 But we are terrible at run blocking, and only average at pass protection. We need a better line to compete with the better teams. Our guys can pass block, but they have had a significant problem run blocking. Look at the jacksonville game. With better run blocking we might have been in that game. Certainly both giants games would have benefited from a running game. We've never beern a terrible pass blocking team, but we aren't an amazing one either. We ARE a terrible run blocking team though, and if we want to compete in this league we need to be able to run the ball. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 It's really impossible to be a "terrible" run blocking team when you are in the top half of the league running the football. This is especially true when you are a team that doesn't really try that much, but, I will say to you that I don't disagree that we are a better pass blocking line than a run blocking line. We'll never be a great run blocking line though because our offensive style requires a lot of passive run blocking due to the number of draws and delays and reverses we run. We can have five Pro Bowlers and simple atrophy will remove the power running game's excellence. We're, again, a good enough running team. We're a good enough pass blocking team. We're not great in either category, but what we are is better, overall, as a whole, than our defensive line presently is. We absolutely DO need to upgrade the line a bit this offseason. That could be accomplished simply by retaining Johnson and putting Jones in there. It might take more than that even. It is simply not a truism that you need to run the ball to compete in the league. Teams behind us as running teams include Oakland, Tampa, New England, the Jets and Indy. You can compete in a lot of ways in the league. Obviously, we need to improve. We also need to focus our attention where we need to improve the most and right now that's the defensive line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Our biggest weakness as a team is still our interior offensive line. The patchwork job we've put together just isn't very good. We're ranked 24th in total offense (24th in passing offense, 18th in running). We've given up 37 sacks, 22nd in the league. That's horrible. Part of the problem is the QB carousel. Part of the problem has been subpar play at WR (but not as bad as everyone thinks -- our WRs have gotten open). And part of the problem has been really embarrassing line play. Yes, the line has been improving, particularly since Tre's return. But I think we're being fooled -- our QB play has gotten much better as well. Ramsey is getting rid of balls faster because he understands the offense. So is the line much better? Well, some, but not enough to consider it fixed for next year. Yes, our inability to generate much of a pass rush is also a glaring weakness. We're ranked 10th in total defense (17th against the rush, 10th against the pass), but 17th in sacks. It's kinda hard to say that we have a bigger problem with pass rush (17th in the league if you use sacks as a measure) than with pass protection (22nd in the league if you use sacks allowed as a measure). Here's my issue with the pass rush: it's a problem at a "star" position: DE. The front office won't ignore defensive end. There are some good candidates in FA like KGB, etc., that could help fix the problem. They can and do ignore OG. I think for Spurrier's pass-happy offense to really take off, he needs some really good linemen. Today he called a more balanced game (mostly because he had the lead -- did you notice that he kicked a field goal instead of going for it? He's learning...), but in his heart I suspect he still wants to throw it 60% of the time. He needs some big nasties to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Originally posted by Art It's really impossible to be a "terrible" run blocking team when you are in the top half of the league running the football. Well, it is certainly possible to do with a bad line. Our running success has come by opening up the field with our passing. When our passing game has clicked we've been okay. So, our QB has been doing much of the o-line's work, which is why I felt justified in the statement. The two giants games would be wins right now with an average run blocking team. (possibly Jacksonville as well) Do you disagree? -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 23, 2002 Author Share Posted December 23, 2002 Well I think one of the main differences in these last 2 weeks is that now Ramsey has the presence of mind to get rid of the ball if nothing happens rather than take sacks. So on some occasions, the D-lineman are getting two him and hurrying him into throwing the ball away. Just because a sack does not occur, does not mean the O-line is playing great. I don't think our O-line is downright awful, but it has much room to improve. Especially on the interior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 DB, Yes, I disagree. But, I disagree because even if we had a GREAT run blocking line, we wouldn't have run enough in those games to make a difference. Spurrier was in rocket mode in all three games and he was so because in all three games those defenses crept up to the line to take away the run and force the pass. Well, against the Jags I think Spurrier just wanted to pass anyway . I think had we decided to run 35 times, we could have won those games. I also think had we not fumbled so many completed passes against the Giants in the second game we could have won. I do not really think Matthews was capable of winning football games by passing though and I think other teams knew it and tried to make him beat them by passing. So, it's not really a cut and dry question you're asking. Madd, Early in the year our worst offensive lineman was Chris Samuels. Our interior line has never been a strength, to be certain, but, our tackles were to be strengths. They weren't. Since Samuels got to take a week off he's been back to normal. Jansen's still a hair less than what we need, but, he's ok. Once the tackles played like the players we knew they were, the line's performance improved. The biggest problem we had early in the year with the offensive line was that our best players were playing like our worst players. Our interior line has had the fortunate luck of adding a quality body like Tre to the mix just as the tackles were picking things up and the line has improved, though, it was never the problem, though it was always a part of it. Where I'm concerned with your analysis here is you used sacks by our team to say we're better than the offensive line because of sacks given up by the team. First, our line isn't responsible for all of the sacks we've given up. Second, our defensive line only has 18 of our 34 sacks. Again, our single biggest consistent weakness is we don't have defensive lineman capable of bringing consistent pressure. We do have offensive linemen capable of limiting consistent pressure. We need to get live, young bodies along the defensive line to correct this. The offensive line also needs another addition. But, since we were starting players we never wanted to start, that's always been obvious. The defense is starting the players it knew it was going to start. It's as good as it gets. It hasn't had to move backups into a starting role for the majority of the season. Wilkinson's loss has been recent, but, he was never a factor in the pass rush this year. EDIT: Oh, and Madd, Spurrier called a typical game for Spurrier. He called plays to exploit what the defense was presenting and when he forced it into another presentation he did another thing. Those last 16 plays were remarkable to watch from Spurrier. I never thought under any circumstances I'd see that many consecutive runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Originally posted by NoCalMike Well I think one of the main differences in these last 2 weeks is that now Ramsey has the presence of mind to get rid of the ball if nothing happens rather than take sacks. So on some occasions, the D-lineman are getting two him and hurrying him into throwing the ball away. Just because a sack does not occur, does not mean the O-line is playing great. I don't think our O-line is downright awful, but it has much room to improve. Especially on the interior. Mike, I have said our line has room to improve too. Especially on the interior where we're starting players for the majority of the year who were intended to be our backups. Obviously we have room to improve. We can improve by doing nothing but getting guys who we hoped and expected to be starters back as starters. I'd like to do more, but, we are much weaker along the line on the other side. This is just heightened by the possibility of losing Wilkinson and/or Smith. Smith is still a good pass rusher from time to time and if we lose both he and Wilkinson we'll be brutally shallow and weak on the defensive line. If we do nothing on the offensive line we'll actually be vastly improved depth wise because backups were starters this year and will go back to being backups JUST by playing guys we already have under contract. We absolutely do need to add a player or two to the offensive line. There's no doubt about it. But, our focus better be our defensive line, because it is on ground much more shaky right now than the offensive line is proving to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Where I'm concerned with your analysis here is you used sacks by our team to say we're better than the offensive line because of sacks given up by the team. First, our line isn't responsible for all of the sacks we've given up. ... We do have offensive linemen capable of limiting consistent pressure. ...The offensive line also needs another addition. But, since we were starting players we never wanted to start, that's always been obvious. Obvious to whom? Not the front office. I'm not really arguing that you can compare our OL to our DL -- way too many moving parts to do that. But imagine what this offense could do if our OL could control the line of scrimmage! We're not going to do that consistently with the has-beens and never-weres on the interior. We need help. Second, our defensive line only has 18 of our 34 sacks. Again, our single biggest consistent weakness is we don't have defensive lineman capable of bringing consistent pressure. ...The defense is starting the players it knew it was going to start. It's as good as it gets. It hasn't had to move backups into a starting role for the majority of the season. Wilkinson's loss has been recent, but, he was never a factor in the pass rush this year. Hardly. We planned on starting Wynn at DT before Gardener fell into our laps. Yes, a lot of our pass rush is being generated by our LBs (Lavar has 10), but that's the plan, isn't it? Why'd we hire all those stud LBs -- to chase TEs in coverage? I agree that I'd love to see us add a good pass-rushing DE to replace Bruce, but I don't think it's as critical as OG. Right now, I'd say our priorities are: OG, DT/DE (it's a toss-up), S, special teams, WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Madd, "Obvious to whom? Not the front office. I'm not really arguing that you can compare our OL to our DL -- way too many moving parts to do that. But imagine what this offense could do if our OL could control the line of scrimmage! We're not going to do that consistently with the has-beens and never-weres on the interior. We need help." Obvious to everyone. You included. It's OBVIOUS we never thought we were going to start Brown and Loverne at guards. It's obvious the team was always going to start other players there. Jones among them, and a training camp addition the team talked about on the second day of training camp. "Hardly. We planned on starting Wynn at DT before Gardener fell into our laps. Yes, a lot of our pass rush is being generated by our LBs (Lavar has 10), but that's the plan, isn't it? Why'd we hire all those stud LBs -- to chase TEs in coverage? I agree that I'd love to see us add a good pass-rushing DE to replace Bruce, but I don't think it's as critical as OG." This is patently incorrect. Wynn was always going to start at defensive end. Carl Powell was going to start at defensive tackle before we landed Gardener. Gardener didn't fall into our laps. He was won over to come here. It's not like he left Miami and called us. It's not like he left Miami and had no interest but us. The man was in demand and we got him. It's obviously great that we have gotten pressure from our backers. But, when we go to a straight four man rush, it is rare we generate anything at all. Improving our ability to get to the passer without having to commit our linebackers is crucial and is the single most glaring weakness this team has. If we didn't have guys under contract on the offensive line we always intended to start it may be different. But, again, we have guys who just by returning help our offensive line. If we do NOTHING but just play with guys returning from injury, we are deeper and better along the offensive line than we are along the defensive line by doing nothing. And, that's the measure to determine what's more important. If you do nothing at all along the offensive line but retain the players you already have under contract, the offensive line will actually IMPROVE from where it's ending up this year in terms of starting quality and depth. If you do nothing to the defensive line at all, but retain the players under contract, you are doomed. This can't be more clear. Gardener is a free agent. He has to be retained. If you do this and then keep the rest of the defensive line, you still need a body there who can competently add pass rushing pressure on a consistent basis more than you need another offensive lineman. And if you cut one or two guys, you are in dire straights. We may go with Holliday or KGB in free agency to help fill this pressing and glaring need. We may add Mo Collins or Mark Taucher or Zack Pillar in free agency to allow the team to cut Stai and then retain Johnson. But, our draft direction has to be clear. A very stupid front office would ignore the defensive line for an offensive lineman or wide receiver. If a just to good to be true player at a position other than the defensive line falls to us in the draft, then you, obviously, go that direction. But, entering the draft you have to be focused on the fact that you need to add bodies under contract to fill out a roster along the defensive line. You already have that, at the least, on the offensive line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Gardener didn't fall into our laps? That's silly. We DID plan on rotating Wynn to defensive tackle and having Arrington play stand-up end... remember? Art: A very stupid front office would ignore the defensive line for an offensive lineman or wide receiver. If a just to good to be true player at a position other than the defensive line falls to us in the draft, then you, obviously, go that direction. But, entering the draft you have to be focused on the fact that you need to add bodies under contract to fill out a roster along the defensive line. You already have that, at the least, on the offensive line. Some would argue that we DO have a very stupid front office... Look, we have lots of needs. No one is arguing that we should ignore the defensive line for anyone. Actually, I think we should go for either DT, DE, or WR in the first round, because there are no OGs worth taking in the first. But regardless of our first-round pick, I think we need to address OG in the second. We need help at OG. We're unlikely to find it through FA, because there are very few good OGs available this year and lots of teams (including, obviously, the Texans) who need them. I don't think we have the bodies we need on the OL. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. And unless Tre is healthy next year, I think we need more than one new OG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsanity56 Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 It's obviously great that we have gotten pressure from our backers. But, when we go to a straight four man rush, it is rare we generate anything at all. Improving our ability to get to the passer without having to commit our linebackers is crucial and is the single most glaring weakness this team has. If we didn't have guys under contract on the offensive line we always intended to start it may be different. But, again, we have guys who just by returning help our offensive line. If we do NOTHING but just play with guys returning from injury, we are deeper and better along the offensive line than we are along the defensive line by doing nothing. And, that's the measure to determine what's more important. If you do nothing at all along the offensive line but retain the players you already have under contract, the offensive line will actually IMPROVE from where it's ending up this year in terms of starting quality and depth. If you do nothing to the defensive line at all, but retain the players under contract, you are doomed ============================================== well said ART.I definitely have the same view as you on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baralufficus Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 After giving this much thought ..I came to this conclusion.. First , when our O-line was playing horrible..Who was the QB ??? Shane Matthews and Danny Wuerfel played better then Ramsey in the beginning of the year ...Only because they knew the offense better ...But it was obvious that when Ramsey played, defenses were more scared of his arm , which got them to go blitz happy ....But I think he was in his learning curve when we played The Pack and The Saints...Thus lead him to make bad decisions , and hold onto the ball longer which was the result of alot of sacks , and TO's.....Benching him was the smartest thing Spurrier did ...It made him have to work on the fundamentals of his game , and also think about the little mistakes he did that resulted in huge plays for the other team ... Now that he is limiting his mistakes..And taking what the defense gives him, instead of forcing the issue ...he is starting to show us all what Spurrier's offense can do in the NFL ....Who would of thought that Watson and Betts would of each got 100 yards rushing today ??and the main reason that happened , was because of Houston being wary of Ramseys arm ...If Wuerfel or Matthews was playing , they would of not respected either of their arms , and would have stacked the box , and made the Skins pass the ball ...which was why we lost alot of games this year ....If the Skins can bring a balanced attack ...then the Skins will be dangerous in the years to come ....It all depends on the play of the QB in Spurriers offense ...And i am really stoked about Ramsey ...His future looks bright , if he continues to wanna learn ....I have a really good feeling about him ... HTTR!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 23, 2002 Author Share Posted December 23, 2002 Good Post, Baralufficus.....I agree, and another thing I like is Ramsey seems to be a team guy and he WANTS to learn. Unlike that guy in Dallas that finally they benched. There were reports all over Dallas early this year that Q. Carter did appreciate having to learn anymore. He thought he knew all he need to. Ramsey is obviously a much more scary threat to a secondary than Danny or Shane. Like most of us have been saying all season. Spurrier's offensive scheme has shown during small portions this year that if the personnel is right and playing good, his offense works. He reads defenses and calls plays to counteract the called play on defense, rather than just using the same formula for every posession. I think we can be an offensive force in another year or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 You win in the trenches. Both sides of the line are equally important. We are going to need two D-lineman, and at least one maybe two guards. DT & DE are premium players right now in the NFL. The best are taken in the first two rounds, or by signing a veteran free agent. It is rare that an o-lineman goes in the first round unless it is a left tackle. Very good guards and centers can be found in the middle/ late rounds, or being brought in as college free agents. If a player is not there when the Skins pick in the first, trade down, like last year to get a few extra picks, so we can take a chance on a diamond in the rough. Of the known players available in the draft so far, I would assume the first pick would be used on a DT, DE or WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Madd, We not only planned to rotate Wynn in at defensive tackle and play Arrington at end, but, we did that. We added Gardener and STILL did that. That plan was unencumbered by adding Gardener. You said we planned to play Wynn at tackle as if he was going to be the primary body there, not as if he was going to be used as he's been used. My comment about the front office being stupid to focus on an area other than the defensive line first and foremost in the offseason was a tweak to people like yourself who think we do, though we don't, have a stupid front office in the first place. You think it, and I was hoping to let you know that it would be it, if it agreed with you that a defensive line that has two guys under too big a contract, one guy who just got hurt and two other guys completely free doesn't qualify as our single greatest area of need. We obviously need a few pieces this year. There's no need that surpasses what at this moment in time is a frightening situation facing us along the defensive line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Frankly, Art, I'd be delighted if the front office focused on both lines this offseason. I really believe that the single biggest determinant of success in the NFL is controlling the line of scrimmage. If you can do that, you've got an enormous head start. Yes, the defensive line needs some help, but they are playing pretty well without Big Daddy. Gardener is a stud in the middle, and is the only guy we can really brag about, but Wynn has been a decent pickup. We're rotating bodies in next to Gardener (Powell and others) with some success -- although I'd think we'd try to find some help there this offseason. Our biggest need is at RDE, where Bruce is just trying to catch his record (and his breath). You can argue back and forth over which side is more important, but our defense, even with the weak pass rush, is the 6th best in the league. Our offense is the 20th best. I think that's a pretty good argument for spending some time and money fixing the offense. In fact, no one would be complaining about our defense at all if our offense could help tilt the time-of-possession and field position battles in our favor. Did you know that while our defense is 6th in the league in yards allowed, we're 24th in the league in points allowed? In other words, we're not making our opponents travel very far to score. We can help address that by adding some big bodies on offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Madd, Precisely how does adding bodies to the offensive line help the fumble 20-yards downfield after a run, or catch, exactly? We are an awful team holding onto the ball. That's not the offensive line doing it generally. Time of possession for this team is pretty even, though not quite in our favor. Gardener is a beast inside, but he's not under contract. Wynn has been a decent pickup and he is under contract. Our defensive line presently has ONE guy under contract who is under the same contract he'll be under next year. That's Wynn. That's it. We're void there. Smith and Wilkinson have to be redone or cut. Gardener and Powell are free agents. Unless Cowsette really has you going, we're in trouble here like no where else until we get some players signed and brought in. In terms of making teams travel far to score, we can also help it by getting a punter and kicker, right? Or, just by not fumbling as often on generally positive plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Diggler Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 MRMADD How many more games do you want to see Dallas rush for 250 on us? How many more games do you want to see where the QB can have a coffee and a danish before hitting the receiver of his choice? How many more games does the strength of our team, the back 7, get wasted due to a D-Line that is slow as $hit? A line that has Bruce Smith Going for the Sack record instead of defending the run? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.