The Crisis of our Lines is Exaggerated

[bikie]

FEED THE FRONT!!! it will come back to haunt us if we don't..

[SkinsFTW]

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.

Another reason this team needs a real GM. It's always plan for this year every year and now with Gibbs gone its back to drafting a lot of offensive skill position players who don't pan out for us while ignoring the lines.

Are any of these guys the next Taylor Jacobs/Ladell Betts/Cliff Russell? Because thats the quality players drafted before Gibbs returned. Hopefully we get lucky and at least 2 of them earn starting jobs.

[wildbill1952]

Offensive lines are made good by good Quarterbacks and good coaches....

Like most sportswriters, and most fans, the offensive lines are typically overlooked. After all, you don't pick any of these guys in fantasy football do you?

I read Clayton's article and yours. It's interesting to note that the two QB's the author mentions as great, Manning and Brady, had coaches that drafted 24 OL over the past 8 years and spent high draft picks to get them. For instance NE drafted 12 OL in since 2000 and Indianapolis drafted 12. Indianapolis drafted 3 this year alone and used their first pick on an OL. NE used two first round picks on their OL over the past 8 years and 6 were taken in the first 4 rounds. Compare that with the Skins, who picked 8 OL: Samuels in the first round, and Dockery in the third and all the others in the 5th rounds or later until we got Rinehart this year. It's interesting to note also that, although the Skins have probably one of the greatest OLine coaches of all-time in Buges, that only the first round Samuels and the third round Dockery ever played a down for the Skins. So that blows your "Great OL are made by good coaches" theory out of the water.

So although sportswriters and most fans don't see how imprtant an OLine is, it's interesting how the two most successful franchises of the past 8 years seem to find OLine important enough to draft them in quantity and draft good ones in the top rounds for quality.

I quit taking this thread seriously when I read "Good offensive lines are made good by good Quarterbacks". Tell that to a QB that's just been sacked or to Portis with his NFC East lowest 3.9 yards per carry. "Hey Collins, you wouldn't have been sacked and would have hit that wide open Santana in the Seattle game if you had made the Oline better." "Hey Portis, you would have done better last year if JC had made the line better."

Do you think the players and coaches who said we have a need on OL and DL know what they're talking about? Strange that every sportswriter everywehere mentioned a need for OL on the Skins? Strange that they see it and you don't? I guess their assessment is overblown also.

...and defensive line dominance requires effective coverage to negate the rapid paced passing game that is the staple of today's NFL.

So if we get better coverage in the secondary, our DLine can stop the run and the pass? Strange that the Super Bowl champs went the other way, upgrading their DLine over the last few years. Should I go tell Tuck and Kiwanuke that the reason they got better was because their DB's got better? I'll let you do it.

[cathartic-j]

It's interesting to note that the two QB's the author mentions as great, Manning and Brady, had coaches that drafted 24 OL over the past 8 years and spent high draft picks to get them. For instance NE drafted 12 OL in since 2000 and Indianapolis drafted 12. Indianapolis drafted 3 this year alone and used their first pick on an OL. NE used two first round picks on their OL over the past 8 years and 6 were taken in the first 4 rounds. Compare that with the Skins, who picked 8 OL: Samuels in the first round, and Dockery in the third and all the others in the 5th rounds or later until we got Rinehart this year. It's interesting to note also that, although the Skins have probably one of the greatest OLine coaches of all-time in Buges, that only the first round Samuels and the third round Dockery ever played a down for the Skins.

Wait a second ... from 2000 to 2007, the Colts only drafted four offensive linemen in the fourth round or earlier, and of those, only two (Tony Ugoh and Ryan Diem) have made any sort of substantial contribution. And Ugoh and the team's first 2008 pick, Mike Pollak, are the only two who have been selected in the first three rounds during that time. So yes, they've drafted twelve linemen, but to say that they've "spent high draft picks to get them" is a bit of a stretch. They've spent two second rounders, three fourth rounders, and the rest have been in rounds 5-7. (Similarly, the Patriots have only drafted one lineman in the first four rounds since 2002.)

But even though I'm not so sure about your examples, I do agree that with your general point that you can't just throw a bunch of scrubs together and expect line coaches to put a coherent line together ... but with the exception of kickers and punters, I don't think there's any position or unit that won't suffer if don't devote many resources to it. However, I think the main point here is that we already have a solid starting unit, and I doubt that any team has a completely solid "second offensive line" as backups.

I quit taking this thread seriously when I read "Good offensive lines are made good by good Quarterbacks".

Obviously, good quarterbacks don't "make" good offensive lines, but I think that it's pretty common knowledge that good quarterback can make an offensive line's job much easier. And if it has an easier job, it can accomplish that job more frequently -- making it "better" in a sense. There's no doubt in my mind that Peyton Manning's quick release, or Ben Roethlisberger's ability to get out of tackles, greatly reduces the number of sacks that their lines give up. The reverse is true, too: remember Rob Johnson?

Strange that every sportswriter everywehere mentioned a need for OL on the Skins.

An awful lot of sportswriters insisted for several years that we'd be in cap hell "next year" for our signings, before they caught on to how Snyder and co. have actually been somewhat shrewd with how guaranteed money has been placed into contracts. None of those years did we face that "cap hell" that was predicted. The fact that something is repeated frequently does not make it true. Some journalists are fantastic, but some are really just plain lazy, and don't bother to do their own work -- and that's why you tend to see the same stupid storylines about each team. Sometimes they're true, but they aren't always.

So if we get better coverage in the secondary, our DLine can stop the run and the pass? Strange that the Super Bowl champs went the other way, upgrading their DLine over the last few years. Should I go tell Tuck and Kiwanuke that the reason they got better was because their DB's got better? I'll let you do it.

Better coverage gives your line a little more time to get to the quarterback. And I think you'll find a lot of people who will tell you that yes, the Giants' secondary did step it up in the playoffs, and that's a significant reason why the Giants made such a great run. Obviously, the Giants' line is full of great players ... but just like what I wrote above about quarterbacks and their offensive line, the other players on the field affect each units' ability to do its job. The Giants' defense is built so that the line makes the secondary's job easier; our defense is built the opposite way. And considering the fact that we had the better defense (during the regular season), I don't really have too much of an issue with our approach.

[GIBBS LIVES]

so..when are you going to point to some actual facts and gametime events?

your preoccupation with emotional states is predictable...and totally irrelevent.

work harder next time to structure an argument based on events that happen on the field and actual results...like crushing losses to elite teams and failures against so so teams in the playoffs. it's not a black/white argument like so many knuckleheads are trying to argue. the point being made by some is that there has been no consistent strategy for the lines over the last 10 years. among other things...that's why the team falls apart with the first signiifcant injury. it's mostly patchwork fixes that have resulted in above average play with pronounced swings and an inability to handle the top tier teams when it counts.

you see it otherwise? have at it. self delusion is something one can live with while nevertheless cheering the team on every Sunday. I'm hoping Cerrato is provding the adult supervision, long-term thinking this team needs to sustain excellence over several years. not the let's pray for a four/five game end-of-season run BS that has characterized this team lately. that is what mid-tier...not top tier...teams have to do.

John Clayton is a perfect example of a guy who covers a sport but hasn't played it and knows nothing about it. He's just some twerp.

The O-line IS that bad. And the facts are that Jansen or Thomas have gone down for the season for 3 years in a row now.

We have no pressure on the opposing QB, did Clayton not see the second half of the playoff game against Seattle??

It's about facts. Not about feelings. And Clayton has proven once again that he is best just reporting what he is told. Not coming up with theories about a sport he could never hope to play in his life time.

[cathartic-j]

John Clayton is a perfect example of a guy who covers a sport but hasn't played it and knows nothing about it. He's just some twerp.

The O-line IS that bad. And the facts are that Jansen or Thomas have gone down for the season for 3 years in a row now.

We have no pressure on the opposing QB, did Clayton not see the second half of the playoff game against Seattle??

It's about facts. Not about feelings. And Clayton has proven once again that he is best just reporting what he is told. Not coming up with theories about a sport he could never hope to play in his life time.

I'm sorry, but I really, really, really dislike this attitude. Does this man know nothing about the game? Because I can guarantee you that he sure as hell hasn't played it at any organized level.

Listen, it makes sense to expect a head coach to have played the game, because he's going to need to relate to the players, and he probably won't be able to do that without any sort of playing experience. But if Len Pasquarelli or Peter King played high school -- or even college -- football, does that mean that they automatically know more about the pro game than someone who hasn't? If you want to know about locker room dynamics, then maybe. But if you're talking about strategy or measuring performance, that playing experience probably makes very little difference, considering the fact that even D1 football is substantially different from the NFL.

[RedSKINS_LAkers]

I think it was a mistake not to take Calais Campbell in the second round. Did we really need to draft another TE - in the second round? When our lines are healthy they are above average lines, but the key is to add young player while the veterans can still play. I think we're good this season but next years draft is going to be interessting.

:notworthy :logo: