The Crisis of our Lines is Exaggerated

[Burgold]

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.

The first point is true... or I'm kidding around while making points.

Points 2,3,4 are fairly serious. For you to believe we will not have a crisis on the O-Line you have to make the assumption that none of our injured starters will get injured again, that their level of play will be equal to their level of play pre-injury, and that age and multiple injuries/surgeries do not have an accumulating impact.

3/5 of our starting line has serious questions about them going forward. All of our starting linemen are on the wrong side of 30. Wade and Fabini did a below average job when inserted into the line.

The line through much of last year ran tilted to one side of the field and limited our playcalling to be a large degree. (You can quibble with this, but whether it was reduced because of injuries, lack of confidence in Jason, or both, the passing and running gameplanning was significantly alterred by the injuries and lack of line cohesion through much of last year.)

[[[ghost]]]

When healthy, our line is great.

When not healthy, we're okay.

Depth was crucial, so we drafted Rinehart and signed that kid out of Appalachian State. Plus, Heyer was coming on strong.

[TheLongshot]

Points 2,3,4 are fairly serious. For you to believe we will not have a crisis on the O-Line you have to make the assumption that none of our injured starters will get injured again, that their level of play will be equal to their level of play pre-injury, and that age and multiple injuries/surgeries do not have an accumulating impact.

3/5 of our starting line has serious questions about them going forward. All of our starting linemen are on the wrong side of 30. Wade and Fabini did a below average job when inserted into the line.

I'm curious which three have questions.

Really, there is only one guy who I think has questions, and that is Jansen. Kendall is solid, Thomas is still probably the best OL on the team, Samuels is coming off of another Pro-bowl trip, and while Rabach didn't have a great year, he had to work with new guys on both sides of him.

Jason

[turbodiesel#44]

I think right now we have a crisis at CB losing CR. The OL depth and DL effectiveness are long lingering weaknesses.

[Going Commando]

: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.

Actually, I think that we have a pretty good rotation at DT. Griffin is a beast of a man and Montgomery looks like he is going to be one too. They stuff the run well, but I agree that they don't collapse the pocket or get penetration as well as could be hoped. That's a pass rushing issue though, and I could be wrong, but I think they will have to acquire a 3rd penetrator in the mold of a Justin Tuck to get that kind of pressure from the inside. But even the best 4-3 DT's in the league (Pat Williams) get shifted out on 3rd down.

Our 3rd down pass rush from the ends is good though. The team plays the run well on the first two downs, and while it might be nice to get double digit sack threats to play the ends every down, it's not likely in the 4-3 we run. We don't run a tampa 2, so we can't afford to use undersized speed rushers on both sides without giving up a lot against the run. I think far more useful woud be to get a defensive end that collapses the pocket (and maybe can shift inside on 3rd down) and holds the edge against the Tackles in order to allow the linebackers to flow the the football without having to worry about shedding too many blocks. Philip Daniels does this, and he is likely going to retire within a year or two. But finding a replacement player for this role will be a lot less expensive and thus less difficult than finding a superior edge-rushing talent.

[SonnyJ]

The first point is true... or I'm kidding around while making points.

Points 2,3,4 are fairly serious. For you to believe we will not have a crisis on the O-Line you have to make the assumption that none of our injured starters will get injured again, that their level of play will be equal to their level of play pre-injury, and that age and multiple injuries/surgeries do not have an accumulating impact.

3/5 of our starting line has serious questions about them going forward. All of our starting linemen are on the wrong side of 30. Wade and Fabini did a below average job when inserted into the line.

The line through much of last year ran tilted to one side of the field and limited our playcalling to be a large degree. (You can quibble with this, but whether it was reduced because of injuries, lack of confidence in Jason, or both, the passing and running gameplanning was significantly alterred by the injuries and lack of line cohesion through much of last year.)

Look, guys like you and Henry have been around here a long time and I know you're not reflexively doom and gloom.

I just think you're engaging in worst-case scenario analysis here. Of course, that scenario has to be acknowledged or else you've got your head in the sand. I just don't think this season is going it made or broken on the state of the lines. Based off of last season, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that to be the case. Why do you just assume that there WILL be a crisis on the line?

Jansen is the only one that I have a degree of concern about. Not sure if the wear and tear has caught up to him or not - I'm certain he can fill as a depth guy at worst, though. Not worried about Thomas - he was set to come back last season, but his strength had not sufficiently recovered to the point that he was able to continue. I'm pretty sure a full offseason will have him back to 100%. The injury wasn't to his wheels, so I think he's OK. Kendall started all 16 games last season. I think he's proven pretty durable over the course of his career - maybe it catches up to him, but I see no basis to think that he is imminently a liability.

There's hand-wringing over the depth on the OL. Is the depth as good as the starters? Nope, that's why they're depth - though maybe Heyer can continue his development and reach that stage. One, I don't think the OL was terrible last season - notice the improvement once Collins came on board? Two, what team in the league has acceptable depth along the OL - what is the measuring stick? You said Fabini and Wade were below average. Below average compared to what? Starters? No, they're not starters over the long term. I think they can be spot starters, though. I don't think it's unrealistic to think that what happened last season is so common as to expect it to happen again. In fact, I think it was downright fluky and could happen to any team in the league - and no team is prepared for it.

Over time, new players will have to be developed, certainly. No sane person is denying that fact. I think the lines as currently constituted are sufficient enough to not kill the team, at a bare minimum. You disagree. That's your perogative, like I said. I just think it's unwarranted gloom and doom.

[kvarlo12000]

assclowns

This word just makes me laugh:laugh:

[Thoth]

Also before you judge the D-line play, and everybody on the "we need an elitle pass runsher opposite Carter", take a look at this.

It illustrates the scheme played and and the execution.

Patriots had 47 sacks as a team - 14 of the came from their D-line.

Seymore - 1.5

Wilfork - 2

Green - 6.5

Warren - 4

Thus their over-aged LB's had a big impact on their blitzing schemes.

Our D-line had 33 sacks as a team - 21.5 of them came from our D-line.

Carter - 10.5

Wilson - 4

Golston - 1

Daniels - 2.5

Evans - 1

Griffin - 2.5

I know many factors go into this then just sacks from the D-line, but If we execute and cover downfield, we should be ok with our group up front. I've got no problem with who we have, and who might surprise (like Wilson last year).

The Pats run a 3-4, LBs are supposed to get most sacks.

[Burgold]

I'm curious which three have questions.

Really, there is only one guy who I think has questions, and that is Jansen. Kendall is solid, Thomas is still probably the best OL on the team, Samuels is coming off of another Pro-bowl trip, and while Rabach didn't have a great year, he had to work with new guys on both sides of him.

Jason

Jansen is the most obvious one. Kendall, I think with the arthritic knees and the wear and tear he's taken is another one. He had a C+ year last year, which wasn't bad all things considered, but I think he's a higher than average injury risk.

Thomas is also, but for a couple of different reasons. Thomas has had two major injuries. That combined with age and compensation makes you have to question him. We don't know how he'll be on the field, because we haven't seen him there. Will either him or Jansen come back full tilt or be tentative.

The thread title is correct to an extent. But I think it's fair in these days to assume some injuries. If you add age and injury history into that mix. That liklihood gets worse. Now that is balanced by Reinhardt and Heyer and Wade. Heyer proved he belongs on the field with an offseason under his belt I envision several steps forward. Reinhardt's a rookie, but he sounds like the right kind of rook (I'm probably blowing the name, but what can you do), Wade isn't a bad fill in, although his efforts were pretty depressing last year.

[Smoot Point Really]

Bugel has a tendency to work miracles with a patch-work line... We've seen him do this for years. More of a spread offense with 3-step drops will help our offensive line just as much as (or more than) adding additional depth. I'm not worried, I'm encouraged for next year. I'm not so encouraged in future years, unless we get rid of the salary cap. Randy Thomas is worth what we pay him, but his guaranteed money may be what comes back and bites us if something unfortunate happens.

[cathartic-j]

As others have pointed out, we currently have Heyer, Rinehart, and Brown (plus other three UDFAs). But I haven't seen Lorenzo Alexander's name in here; it's worth mentioning that he'll be on the offense full-time next year, too.

Are those guys ready to start? With the possible exception of Heyer, probably not. But what, exactly, should we have done instead? If we had stayed at 21, we might have been able to get somebody closer-to-starting-status than Rinehart. But keep in mind that between pick 1/21 and pick 3/33, there were only five offensive linemen selected. So it's entirely possible that none of those five were players were particularly impressive to Cerrato or Bugel, or that the ones who did impress wouldn't have been a particularly good fit here. By waiting until the third round to draft a lineman, we actually didn't miss out on many players.

And if we addressed the position in free agency, I'm not sure how it would be any different from bringing in a Todd Wade or Ross Tucker.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I understand the concern about offensive line depth, considering the age and injury history of our starters. But if Brown or one of the other UDFAs is promising enough to make the roster, then we have four young and reasonably promising linemen to develop. I'll be concerned if one of the starters goes down with a major injury very early in the season (*knocks on wood*), but I think the team has actually set itself up pretty well for the future -- just very quietly.

That said, I don't understand why nobody brings up the backup center position. If Rabach goes down, who exactly do we plan to plug in? Does this mean that Kyle DeVan is automatically going to be on the active roster?

[fansince62]

I'm curious which three have questions.

Really, there is only one guy who I think has questions, and that is Jansen. Kendall is solid, Thomas is still probably the best OL on the team, Samuels is coming off of another Pro-bowl trip, and while Rabach didn't have a great year, he had to work with new guys on both sides of him.

Jason

Jason..the real point is that we are on at least a two year schedule. It's not about the O-line this season. It's the O-line/d-line season after next.

I think it is supremely reasonable to believe that with a new HC, a new OC, a new DC, new offensive scheme, a QB learning the new scheme, new players at the positions so many claim are the turnkeys, important players coming off major injuries......that next season is not going to be a Championship season. it's about positioning ourselves for runs in 2-3 years. and the piper is gonna have to be paid on the lines during that timeframe...partly as a consequence of how the roster has been built/funded in the past. lines and skill position rotations are out of sequence.

[Smoot Point Really]

I think this current line can function well for the next 2-3 years... We need some youth who can become starters, but this is serviceable... Our biggest boon this year will be a 3-step drop added to the arsenal and a running game that shouldn't be facing "8-in-the-box" too often.

[dfbovey]

what qualifies them as one of the best in the league?

Last time the entire line was healthy for the majority of the season they were 2nd in the league in sacks given up that year and the running game was one of the best in the league.

Check the results for 2006.

The problem last year, with Jansen and Thomas out... the offense couldn't run to the right and the protection on that side was exploited.

The line definitely needs an injection of youth though. While the line is a very good one and one of the best when healthy... these older players have proven to be unreliable. Doesn't help that most of the depth are older than the starters.

Both lines need attention. We have very little young depth in the grooming stages to replace these 30+ year old linemen.

[turbodiesel#44]

..the real point is that we are on at least a two year schedule. It's not about the O-line this season. It's the O-line/d-line season after next.

I hope that is the case. Have you heard the FO confirm this? I've been thinking we address the DL next year for over a decade.

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

Absofriggenlutely!!! I've been yelling this for a while. Thanks for that article.

[Smoot Point Really]

I think right now we have a crisis at CB losing CR. The OL depth and DL effectiveness are long lingering weaknesses.

I don't think we have a crisis here... We have a depth issue. Losing CR wasn't a huge loss (as some predicted)... Fred Smoot played just as well, if not better. Adding Tryon and getting Torrence another year of work will help here. We can't afford injuries to Springs or Smoot, but it's not like there aren't other teams in the same position.

With Kareem Moore walking around on crutches today and missing the next 6 weeks or so... Remind me why we didn't take Josh Barrett with this pick? I'm sure Moore will be fine, but I'm concerned that he has such a significant injury after only being drafted recently. Anyway, he is a backup to Laron Landry... Landry is the guy we REALLY can't lose.

[turbodiesel#44]

I don't think we have a crisis here... We have a depth issue. Losing CR wasn't a huge loss (as some predicted)... Fred Smoot played just as well, if not better. Adding Tryon and getting Torrence another year of work will help here. We can't afford injuries to Springs or Smoot, but it's not like there aren't other teams in the same position.

Springs was unusually healthy last year, and still has good game. But he's another year older, and if you look at his track record, you should plan on losing him for at least a few games. Smoot, Torrance and a 5'-9", 180 lb rookie scares me. Smoot won't even be tested. And we have 0 depth behind that scenario. It's great to have a player who can fill multiple positions as depth, but there are 3 starting corners, and we have 1 small drafted guy and a bunch of unknowns. Three positions means 3 times the risk of injury. We learned that the hard way on our OL last year, and were lucky to find Kendall. Maybe one of the unknowns steps up, but most of them are pretty small too. And untested. Maybe crisis is a strong word, but I see CB as position of greatest short term concern.

[artmonkforHOF]

It's age man...it has nothing to do with their play today so much as much as it is their age. Injuries and deteriorated play are the concerns, not talent. All of our starters on the o-line are past their prime with the exception being Samuels who is still going strong and Jansen as the question mark. After that, Heyer is our only real prospect. Wade and Fabini are ok fill ins but as we saw last year certainly not rock solid.

Im not crying the sky is falling, im just saying I do see why people make a big deal out of the o-line...d-line I am a bit more comfortable with.

yes it is about age. I would much rather have a rookie LT come in and learn from Samuels before he retires.

[thechalkoutlines]

Entirely too much emphasis is placed on linemen on these boards, and entirely too much is made of the deficiencies of the Redskin's defensive and offensive lines...

This is a thread that literally compelled me to lift my eyes and praise the maker, because sifting through this board for posters with a clue is usually a losing battle. I concur, whole-heartedly, and thank you for providing me numbers, because I can focus on the perception I got from the stretch run last year. BOTH of our lines dominated the line of scrimmage when it mattered. Adrian Peterson & Marion Barber... the pro-bowl backs from the NFC... how did they and their running games fare against our D-Line? There's no doubt we can stop the run. The lack of a pass-rush argument is blown out of proportion because we DO manage to make teams one-dimensional. Our secondary was thin last year, but the unit clearly gelled down the stretch while Springs and Landry made key plays. If you give me a defense that can shut down the best running games in the league + a completely revamped and reloaded offense that can actually score TDs in the redzone, I'll give you a sure-fire playoff team and a SERIOUS Super Bowl contender.

[Soul Swinger]

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

Wow -- that's some kinda quarterback. Even statistical impossibility can't stop him!

[Veretax]

Why was Springs healthy? Could it be because he got rest at the beginning of the year? Or has anyone remembered that fact?

[No_Pressure]

I tried explaining after 2006 how the D-Line isn't as important to our scheme as good DB's and great LB's. I was in favor of drafting Patrick Willis until we picked up Fletcher because I really thought we needed some smart, tough playmakers at those positions. DT's in our system can be plugged in, 1 DE is needed to be a good pass rusher, 1 DE is needed to be strong against the run. Very seldom do you find a player that can do both, especially outside of the top 5 picks in the draft so it makes more sense to me picking up players for the linebackers and db's.

The only pick I would have done differently is Fred Davis. I thought we were going to pick up a DE with that selection, which would be nice considering how Daniels is starting to get up there a bit in age, and whoever we picked could spend a year or two learning the pro game in a rotation before being the starter but w/e.

[darrelgreenie]

Honestly, what are people going by that gives them such unwarranted fear and emphasis on the state of the Redskins' linemen? It certainly isn't based on how the units actually performed last year, since they were statistically very good. .

Good post bro. IMO people exaggerate our d-line woes largely based on the Giants d-lines success in the SB. The d-line became 'sexy'

To me upgrading the receiving core was rightfully priority #1.

The Brandon Lloyd debacle forced ARE out of position.

Moss is game changing but injury prone receiver.

James Thrash, Keenan McCardell and Reche Caldwell were once adequate receivers but none prevent teams from doubling Moss or ARE.

IMO we needed a true 'Z' to move ARE into the slot where he could be even more dangerous.

We needed receivers more then d-lineman.

[redshirtguy#45]

I think the most important factor to this entire discussion, is that this is a TEAM sport. OL goes hand in hand with the level of QB performance ... sometimes the OL is the reason the QB has success, and sometimes the QB can make up for deficiencies in the OL. But the bottom line is, that it's how you work together. Likewise with DB's and the pass rush.

We can continually try and isolate the performance of one group/person and try to analyze how heavily it weighs on the outcome or performance of another position or a game in general, all day long. But this is not tennis or golf. This is football, where 11 men have to work in unison on each side of the ball to have success.

Anyone can craft a theory and find the necessary opinions/research to support that belief. After all, 90% of research is conducted after a theory/hypothesis has been developed, in order to support it.

Regardless of statistics, wins or losses ... it is no secret that our line was very depleted last year. Two of our top OL'man suffered season ending injuries in the first 2 games, and we also experienced injuries like hamstrings and such later in the season on the OL. We can debate all we want whether we were "sufficient" or "good enough" on the OL to justify staying pat, not drafting any high caliber prospects or bringing in FA's, whichever we prefer.

That being said, it is what it is, it is simple and it is not rocket science. Athletes reach a physical/athletic peak, and then they decline, some faster than others. THIS is why many on this board clamor for more depth. So that in the future we aren't trading for 34 year old guards to fill a need, and bringing in Fabini. To make light of this fact, or to make little of the fact that some want the team to draft OL'man for depth, is not really looking at the big picture IMO.

I don't necessarily think that this issue has to be soley addressed in the draft, or that there aren't capable OL'man out in FA. But the odds on having younger OL'man who have had a couple years to develop in a system, has proven to give a new OL'man in a group the best chance to succeed.

I find it interesting that a reporter, with as much experience Clayton has in the journalism field and as much knowledge as he has of the game from a fan's perspective ... has probably never suited up and played the game of football as an organized sport. I'm not suggesting that he is not capable of understanding the game, its positions or it's strategies. But I do find it interesting that a guy that is prolly 5'8 and 150 lbs can support the notion that an OL is not as crucial to the success of a team than he gives credit for. I do not think our DL is in the same situation and I feel comfortable with the youth ad vet experience we have there. And I think we have a couple good prospect on the OL, and if our vets do stay healthy, we will have success. But that doesn't mean, at least IMO, that you don't look to get younger and better at those positions. Just my $.02.

much agreed.