The Crisis of our Lines is Exaggerated

[MoeRedskins]

Um, how old is Heyer again?...

Uh, how good is Heyer again? He is decent and may be able to progress into a starter, but right now he is very below average.

[TheLongshot]

I don't know if you find a whole lot of OL who are 'developed' from lower round picks. Certainly, it happens, but it is tough when you are also trying to provide solid depth for your OL. The difference with the OL from any other position is that if one of those guys fail, it could severely hurt your franchise. The QB is the most valuable guy on the field. He's the one that makes everything go. You lose him, you aren't going anywhere.

Thats why you often see older veterans make the roster over younger guys. Unless a guy really sells the staff on him, there aren't a lot of teams who are going to risk carrying a young, inexperienced guy on the O-Line, especially when they know that guys can and will go down on the line.

Jason

[Going Commando]

you make a great point, and thanks for clarifying where Clayton was coming from exactly. But to that same point, isn't it a possibility that some QB's who were not drafted early or were not big time prospects, enjoyed success due to the fact that they had great coaching, a great line and/or the majority of the skill players they needed to be effective (eg. Tom Brady or Tony Romo sits to pee)? Likewise there have been plenty of 1st round QB's drafted only to see their entire career over before it started, due to lack of protection (eg. Ramsey or JOey Harrington)?

I agree on the whole that finding a top tie QB to build a team around has more risk/reward associated with it, because they are to an extent the most important position on the field. That being said, there are few players like McNabb or Manning who actually make their team better themselves. It's all a crap shoot, though I can't say I agree that the Dolphins will regret getting Jake Long instead of Matt Ryan, considering they still got Chad Henning, who had success at a big time program and won big-time games as well. Just some food for thought.

It is a total crap shoot, so you have to ultimately look at it and say, "We have strong reason to suspect that Matt Ryan won't be a franchise QB, so let's not waste the pick." It's a complete guess, players that can take a game over by themselves come about once in a blue moon. And even when they do, there is still all kinds of contingency and peril that they face, look what happened to Mike Vick. Wrong scheme / non football stuff can ruin even those rare individuals blessed with the ability to always be the best football player on the field.

Luckily for us, the Redskins aren't forcing Jason Campbell to be the type of player who can win games by himself. They are giving him every resource and opportunity he could ask for to develop. That is why (although I do feel somewhat uneasy about the uncertainty at QB) I am positive about this team and the way it's been built. Campbell clearly has the physical ability to be excellent, and everything is being put into place for him. I do think that he will be good, I just am not going to expect it to happen as quickly as it did for the more remarkable cases like Tony Romo sits to pee and Derek Anderson and even Jay Cutler (to cite recent examples).

[Fat Stupid Loser]

Perhaps its that people think, by focusing their critical attention on the lines, they can ignore the truly disturbing contingency at QB the Redskins face.

Yep.

[jpillian]

Tom Brady managed to obliterate us completing well over 100 percent of his passes.

Now I knew Tom Brady was good, and it certainly felt like he completed more passes than he threw, but I don't think that's entirely possible.

Though, I'm beginning to see how Bellicheat can so consistently win if he can get his QB to actually complete passes he didn't even throw, who couldn't?

Sorry, man, I thought that was one of the funniest typos I've seen in a while :laugh:

[mudhog]

mud.....the facts are what they are

- on the first playoff run we struggled to get into the playoffs. many of the games we won down that 5 game stretch were pretty ugly. it was not of the "great team coming together" variety. heck...we needed ST to set things straight against a Philly team having a horrendous year - we almost let an average/slightly abover average receiver (Brown) beat us. the performance was what it has been all along the last 4 years......on the cusp. never certain. we have had just a couple games where everything actually executed in the magical way so many keep claiming happened.

- last year's playoff run, while exciting, had all sorts of unique cicumstances...not the least of which was ST's murder. the team started off well...in fact should have been 6-2 at the turn. but the point is...it wasn't. it has been a bumpy ride with a lot of inconsistency for a long time. always good...never good enough. all you ahve to do is reflect on game after game after game to realize that.

fixing our receiver limitations is a good thing. we can finally put this to bed since we first started mucking with it back in the Spurrier days. the lines need to be upgraded. many of us have listed the issues ad infinitum. Cerrato and Blache have as much as said there is work to be done.

in the end.....some are looking at the folks we have on the lines and thinking "good enough"...there are others of us thinking "not good enough". not if you want to win Championships. there are weaknesses there that good defenses and good offenses can exploit - and have exploited in the playoffs. when we think about how we got to where we are one clear pattern is how the draft has been prioritized in years past. the way the team has managed its cap, discounted draft picks, signed its FAs has put it in a hole IRT synchronizing its roster stability in the sense of sustaining Championship quality talent. It's obvious to me that the Skins are on a rebuilding project...you can read it between the lines and it ought to be ovious except to the most diehard, drug addled diehard: we have a new HC with no experience, a new OC, a new DC, a new VP with a different philosophy on roster management. In some ways...it's exciting to watch what is going on and believeing that they finally "get it." but until we become a 13-3/12-4 team ranked in Riggo's top 5....:-).....week in and week out......I'm waiting for results.

Don't forget Cerrato really hasn't cue'd us in on the long-term plan. patr of the journey is watching this unfold...I truly hope we all underestimated him by miles and miles.

I agree with what you're saying here Fan. We looked neither pretty or polished in either of our playoff runs. To tell ya the truth though, I felt we had a better chance last year to beat Seattle than the year we went with Brunell. I was really surprised we showed so poorly in this last game, but I felt we had a better chance to win it with Collins than with Campbell. Not because I think Campbell is crap, but Collins just had the experience and it showed until Seattle.

Alot of people bash Campbell for decision-making and I say that it is to be expected with youth. Then those same people tout Collins as the savior. But until Collins had the same pressure on him that Jason had in his face all season, he did look very cool and composed. What I'm getting at is that when the QB was not a liability down the streatch, when we made our last 4 decisive wins to get to Seattle, we had gelled as a team and it showed. We looked fabulous at the end of last season. And because we clicked so well, it gave Al Saunders time to open up the playbook because he was not worried about anything but continuing that success. Once we started to fall apart in the Seattle game tho, Todd looked like the mediocre scrub that many bash Campbell to be.

I think we have in place right now, what we have needed all along. A coach who understands and can coach a QB. He is also the OC which means he will be mere steps away from Campbell throughout training camp. Not the disconnected, playcalling, farce of an OC that AS was.

[Peregrine]

And yet, our offensive line couldnt open running lanes and couldn't protect the QB. Our defensive line, outside of Carter(who BTW is a great athlete) couldn't get sacks or create turnovers.

We KNOW which teams are the best in the NFL year in and year out, and we know what they have, strong lines. Sure, there are always exceptions, but the rule in the NFL has been shown, year in and year out, that strong line play breeds success. The Giants were the best defense last year, and it wasnt because of their DBs. The Pats and Colts always have the best offense, and what do they have in common(outside of two great QBs who have all day to throw). The Browns offense exploded last year, after working to acquire top quality linemen in the draft(Thomas) and FA(Bentley). Our defense was so good last year, not because our DBs played lights out, but because our DLine stuffed the run.

Is it any kind of exact corelation? No, because football isnt a spreadsheet. But teams that perform well in the trenches year in and year out, are the better teams. Of course every team can dream that they can just make star players out of UDFAs by superior coaching, but lets be realistic.

[cjbrown]

Great read. Thanks for putting in the time to write. But I remember the dominant lines of the past (Steelers, Bills, Miami) and they did change games and seasons. I think that good coaching can cover a lot, but it cannot cover some things, such as short yardage and when the other team knows what you are going to do, and has the correct defense called. When you have elite players teams can know what you are going to do and still cannot stop it every time. Thus elite players can cover up poor coaching.

No one is correct all the time and the game or season can rise or fall on a few plays. The giants barely made the playoffs, yet the won the SB. The better the coaching AND the players and a little good fortune, the more likely you are to be successful.

Some of the line players are getting old and they will have to be replaces over the next 1-4 years. Possibly all the starting o-line players. If we wait until year 4 we are more likely to have a disaster. But, we have time to develop continuity now, which is what we want. Replace 1 to 2 starters a year, to maintain good line play throughout the transition.

The Defense has been successful, but we do have problems with certain teams and at certain times. The old Pettibone defense could shut a team down when it had to. Part of this was the ability to apply pressure from the d-line without a special blitz that put your secondary at risk. A good coach and quarterback can pick this apart and keep drives alive. Thus, we had many games where we could not keep a lead and lost. We had to blitz to get pressure too often. Thus the need for a dominant rusher.

So it is legitimate in my mind to want the dominant sack man, but our most immediate need was addressed in the draft and that was offensive playmakers. We will still have problems with pressure at times, but our defense has and should still be more successful than the offense WAS.

Thus I agree to a point, but understand the need for the lines to be addressed also. We got possibly the top WRs, punter and tight end in the draft. With health we are incredibly flexible. Thus we may be able to score almost at will. That has not been seen here in a long time. We used to have 3 & out at critical times in the games. The punting and offensive improvement will help the defense tremendously, I think.

[Gymratfwp]

2.) As far as the claim that the defense is dominant, it was said elsewhere that the team finished 8th in the NFL last year.

If it makes any difference,

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=team&sort=ypg&pos=def&league=nfl&year=2007&season=2

There is your evidence....one of the best posts I have read on here in a long time, most of the time I just read and sit back and take it all in when it comes to the debates and whatnot, but this is definitely one of the better ones that has been on this forum in awhile, in my opinion anyways.

-paul.

[Veretax]

Wow I always did like Clayton, but that's a GREAT article. Kudos!

[Never4get#21]

I wanted us to address CB and LB in the draft(not TE). I too believe we have the tools in place to put pressure on the QB. Monty & Golston have to show what they are made of. Both look to be in great shape. Im hoping C. Wilson can provide some pressure from the other side on a more consistant bases. That means more play time for him.

Where im concerned is LB and CB. Rocky is not healthy and may not be. We know Washington has been injury plagued the past few seasons and we dont really have any depth. Carlos is in the same boat. S.Springs had one full season wow! He goes down were left with a couple of nickel corners. That will be our achilles heal this season. Dallas, NY, and Philly bolstered there offense and defense. We might be able to run and gun, but will we be able to stop anyone. We were a top teir defense, but that was with ST. We dont know what Reed will do for a whole season, and baring no injuries we'll see how we stack up.

Our OL is solid. WCO should take some pressure off that aging line, but if need be I think the two rookies can step in. I like Rinehart and Brown. I think they will both make an impact and compete for time in the future. We still have Heyer which should be in better shape this year, and Wade was a good backup. He was asked to play guard which threw his game off. He is a good backup tackle. We do need a center but that can be addressed. We have more fire power (on paper). It should be a fun season.

[TheLongshot]

Rocky is not healthy and may not be.

The team has said otherwise, that he should be on the field by June. Now, Carlos might not be ready when the season starts, but we knew that.

Jason

[36HAMMER]

go back and watch the games, how many first downs and touchdowns did we get when it was crunch time? not many. maybe i'm spoiled having watched this teams oline dominate the eighties like they did. this line has never come close to that line. and the arguement about injuries is weak, everyone knows that the older one gets the more injuries are likely to happen and when they do are much harder to get past. i do believe this oline might do well if they can stay healthy, but thats a big if. for once i would like to see this line play a whole year with out a major injury and see what happens with this offense.i know the game that we lost to the giant and was credited with turning their year around because of weak oline play.we also lost the playoff game for the same reason.so excuse me if i say that theres a problem with oline.here hopeing the oline stays healthy.and we get some cb help

[skindogger47]

Whoa whoa whoa. McQueen, are you trying to bring logic into this argument? Some people here will not let this interrupt their steadfast beliefs that we must have first round picks at EVERY position to be a contender. I mean, that's what the Colts do, right? Oh wait. They have first round RECEIVERS, TE, and QUARTERBACK, with a dominant pass rusher to anchor their line. Damn logic. . .

[Cpt.Chaos47]

When healthy:

2005:

#10 in sacks allowed

#7 in rushing yards

2006:

#3 in sacks allowed

#4 in rushing yards

When not healthy:

2007:

#13 in sacks allowed

#12 in rushing yards

Out of curiosity, what would you think would qualify an offensive line as one of the best in the league?

Thanks for making my point for me. People seem to think because a player hits 30 they can no longer play and even last year when Jansen and Thomas were hurt all year the Oline was still better than most teams.

[skindogger47]

go back and watch the games, how many first downs and touchdowns did we get when it was crunch time? not many. maybe i'm spoiled having watched this teams oline dominate the eighties like they did. this line has never come close to that line. and the arguement about injuries is weak, everyone knows that the older one gets the more injuries are likely to happen and when they do are much harder to get past. i do believe this oline might do well if they can stay healthy, but thats a big if. for once i would like to see this line play a whole year with out a major injury and see what happens with this offense.i know the game that we lost to the giant and was credited with turning their year around because of weak oline play.we also lost the playoff game for the same reason.so excuse me if i say that theres a problem with oline.here hopeing the oline stays healthy.and we get some cb help

Has any line ever come close to that line? BTW the respective coaches/trainers of said line/team were much more in tune to what was going on in the world of football then, and gameplanning for a team week to week was much less difficult.

And we lost to the Giants because Ladell Betts tripped over his own damn feet.

[fansince62]

go back and watch the games, how many first downs and touchdowns did we get when it was crunch time? not many. maybe i'm spoiled having watched this teams oline dominate the eighties like they did. this line has never come close to that line. and the arguement about injuries is weak, everyone knows that the older one gets the more injuries are likely to happen and when they do are much harder to get past. i do believe this oline might do well if they can stay healthy, but thats a big if. for once i would like to see this line play a whole year with out a major injury and see what happens with this offense.i know the game that we lost to the giant and was credited with turning their year around because of weak oline play.we also lost the playoff game for the same reason.so excuse me if i say that theres a problem with oline.here hopeing the oline stays healthy.and we get some cb help

agree.

[fansince62]

I think they will both make an impact and compete for time in the future.

Not pickin on ya N4...but how in the world can you make such a statement about guys who have never played a down in the NFL against real talent? the best one can say at this point is..."we'll see."

[fansince62]

Has any line ever come close to that line? BTW the respective coaches/trainers of said line/team were much more in tune to what was going on in the world of football then, and gameplanning for a team week to week was much less difficult.

And we lost to the Giants because Ladell Betts tripped over his own damn feet.

we lost cuz the defense couldn't hold a lead. betts never should have been in that position in the first place.

how do you know gameplaning in the 80s was "much" less difficult? can you quantify this so it has some real meaning? for example, how much less diffcult was it to gameplan against the 49ers running the WCO we now so dearly want to emulate?

[bertoskins]

yeah we are good but right now our hindrance is health and age on both lines. hope that we get some good back ups in June or in FA.

[elkabong82]

For the D-line, this is from another thread, and I am using the infamous self-quote:

Yup, everyone is talking about the flavor of the month Giants and their pass rush. Nevermind we took it to them in their own home with playoffs on the line for both teams, with our starting RT and RG out for the season. Where was that incredible DL, which is apparently the only reason the Giants won the Superbowl to some of you, then? Nevermind the same Pats team they upset beat them and put up 38 points on their fearsome DL. 9 times out of 10 the Pats win that game, our D was better than the Giants D, but many seem to have forgotten that, simply because we didn't do exactly what the Superbowl champs did.

Anyways, it all comes down to the "maddenism" the most tried and true method to winning football games: Whoever scores the most points at the end of the game, wins. If the D is one of the better units in the league at not allowing points, and the offense is one of the better ones in scoring, you've probably got a playoff team. Our D, especially in recent years, has been one of the better teams at low points per game allowed, our O on the other hand, has been abysmal in scoring points per game. Now let's look at the big book of stats (I went back to 2000 as Tandler did):

Points per game Allowed/ NFL rank (1 being the best, 32 being the worst)

'07: 19.4/ 11th best

'06: 23.5/ 27th

'05: 18.3/ 9th

'04: 16.6/ 5th

'03: 23.2/ 16th

'02: 22.8/ 21st

'01: 18.9/ 13th

'00: 16.8/ 7th

Since 2000, our D has been in the top half of the league in points allowed 6 of 8 times. They average overall 13th, 19.9 ppga.

Now for the O, points scored per game/ NFL rank

'07: 20.9/ 18th

'06: 19.2/ 20th

'05: 22.4/ 13th

'04: 15.0/ 31st

'03: 17.9/ 22nd

'02: 19.2/ 25th

'01: 16.0/ 28th

'00: 17.6/ 24th

Since 2000, our O has been above the 20's only twice. I think it is more than just a coincedence that both those years we made the playoffs. The average rank is 22nd, 18.5 ppg.

Since 2000, our records have been 8-8/ 8-8/ 7-9/ 5-11/ 6-10/ 10-6/ 5-11/ 9-7 respectively. The only seasons our O averaged more points than the D allowed were '07, '05, and '00. 2 of those seasons we made the playoffs, in '00 we went 8-8.

So there you have it, in terms of points per game, the ultimate factor in whether or not you win. Our D has been solid, more or less, over the years, our offense has not. This is why we have upgraded our O, and it's been a long time coming. For all the laments about us not taking a DE early in a long time, how many years now have we ignored drafting O early in favor of D (save for JC in '05)? Since '04 the 1st round picks have been 3 to 1 in favor of D.

This defensive unit, more or less installed in '04, has averaged 19.4 ppga. Our O last season averaged almost 21 points per game (I know, weird). If our O improves that by even 1/2 a point per game we should have a winning record. Given all the offensive weapons we just drafted, and our OL is returning healthy finally, I think they stand a very good chance at improving on the points per game average. If this happens, we have another winning season, and without drafting a DE, OMG! Shocker.

O-line: We need youthful depth who can become starters. Now we have Rinehart, Heyer, and maybe Kerry Brown steps up.

2005, our playoff run was cut short because of, among other things, an ineffective OL missing Randy Thomas, and Raymer stepped in for Rabach. The same thing hampered our '07 season, and Kerney owned our injured OL in the playoffs in Seattle. 2006 our OL was completely healthy and allowed Betts to rush for over 1000 yds, when the guy previosuly had never come close to any kind of production like that, and since hasn't either. The OL was so good, it even started conversations about who was a better back, Portis or Betts. That should tell you something about our OL when healthy, that they made people actually think Betts could be a better back than CP. The key to the OL, then, is health. The younger guys bounce back from injuries quicker, and develop into eventual starters. We have those young guys now, though we'll probably need to add another one next offseason, and our OL should be much better than last year, and we are better prepared, IMO, for injuries thuis year.

[Burgold]

Now I knew Tom Brady was good, and it certainly felt like he completed more passes than he threw, but I don't think that's entirely possible.

Though, I'm beginning to see how Bellicheat can so consistently win if he can get his QB to actually complete passes he didn't even throw, who couldn't?

Sorry, man, I thought that was one of the funniest typos I've seen in a while :laugh:

Actually, it was a joke. An intentional overstatement.

Was wondering if anyone caught it. I put in two of those.

To me, this is a silly argument (That a strong line is irrelevent). It's based on several unknowable and faulty premises.

1) You can convince opposing defenses to count to three Mississippi before beginning their pass rush. If you can do that, then yeah, a qb doesn't need a good o-line.

2) There will be no injuries amongst our starters who are coming back from severe injuries and now have a history of being injured.

3) That age and injury have not taken a toll on any of our starters.

4) That we will suddenly become good at converting 3rd and inches and fourth and inches when we have been terrible at it for years.

5) That a good cornerback on an island can easily cover a receiver for fifteen seconds until the qb gets impatient, trips on his own feet, and falls down sacking himself allowing a below average pass rush to record a pressure or a sack.

[BobDigi]

You know, I don't always agree with what this guy has to say, but that was a very good article. Thanks for posting that!

[SonnyJ]

Actually, it was a joke. An intentional overstatement.

Was wondering if anyone caught it. I put in two of those.

To me, this is a silly argument (That a strong line is irrelevent). It's based on several unknowable and faulty premises.

1) You can convince opposing defenses to count to three Mississippi before beginning their pass rush. If you can do that, then yeah, a qb doesn't need a good o-line.

2) There will be no injuries amongst our starters who are coming back from severe injuries and now have a history of being injured.

3) That age and injury have not taken a toll on any of our starters.

4) That we will suddenly become good at converting 3rd and inches and fourth and inches when we have been terrible at it for years.

5) That a good cornerback on an island can easily cover a receiver for fifteen seconds until the qb gets impatient, trips on his own feet, and falls down sacking himself allowing a below average pass rush to record a pressure or a sack.

Eh, you're just distorting what others have said and engaging in hyperbole to prop up your argument.

If you want to get hysterical over the state of the lines, then that is obviously your perogative. But you ain't convincing anyone with posts like this.

[TotalRecall]

:yawnee: You're only 21. You will learn eventually.

The O-line is getting old and injury-prone. And they don't have hardly any depth there.

The d-line is very inconsistent. There is no DT push to collapse the pocket or to hold RBs for a loss. Daniels is getting old and needs a replacement. In this pass happy league, they can't wait until 3rd downs to formulate a pass rush!!! And there isn't much depth on the D-line either.