SirClintonPortis Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 The Bucs said the same about Steve Young, Doug Williams and Trent Dilfer before getting rid of them. I am not saying Rex can do it alone, but certainly he is better than Dilfer and he won it all. Tell me how likely a team fields one of the greatest defenses EVER? That's why Dilfer won. Good luck getting a HOF LB, two monsters in Siragusa and Adams, and so on. ---------- Post added December-12th-2011 at 10:10 PM ---------- It is funny that posters talk about trends and being "IN"..... Trendsetters don't follow they lead, and winning is always trendy. There's a damn good reason LTs are usually the ONLY OL taken in the early first round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOSKN5 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Stud QB. You could give Grossman 2 minutes to throw, he would still try to beat triple coverage, and throw INTs. You need a good QB making good decisions. This..... Have you also noticed that grossman almost never checks to a back? He will occasionally hit them when they run a short route in middle, but I have seen him look downfield and never see a wide open back toward sidelines... Ends up takin a sack.... He won't settle or throw away.... Our line played decent yesterday without a few key pieces... Put rodgers, brady, brees behind that line and we beat Pats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoudMouth12thMan Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 If Grossman had any mobility AT ALL he could be a servicable franchise QB. Unfortunately, it's as if his legs are made of concrete. Not to mention that unless Kiss' merchandise company has come out with a four inch cleat that I'm unaware of, we could stand to have some height behind the Line. Short, slow, noodle armed, and dangerous...ly close to throwing another pick is not a recipe for success behind any O line. QB please. This line even as it was this past Sunday would be serviceable at the least with a fairly mobile QB. A good QB with good mobility can hide deficiencies of an O line. Our O line is younger and better than it's been in a long time regardless of what many think or say. Yeah we need depth but not much based on what I've seen this year from our O line. QB needed badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Acre Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Mark Rypien./thread. You mean a QB who put it all together for one magical year because he had, perhaps, the greatest offensive line of all time??? (9 sacks, the whole year) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Anyone who picks OL is delusional, doesn't really understand modern football, and is stuck in the 1980s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 You mean a QB who put it all together for one magical year because he had, perhaps, the greatest offensive line of all time??? (9 sacks, the whole year) 9 sacks? Wow, I had forgotten that the line was that good. It also helped that we had the all-time leader in receptions playing for us at wide reciever, and one of the best DBs of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MumboSauce Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Star QB, with current O-line. Easy. Not to say the O line doesn't need some parts/improving, it does, but that star/stud QB is hard to come by and we haven't had one in ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpskins10 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 A great qb is more than stats.Brady quickly took over the mantle with his poise and clutch play, much like Montana. They weren't the most prolific and but still elite and knew how to manage an offense and how to make plays when plays were needed. It's funny - the better Brady's stats got in the regular season, the less he's won in the postseason/Super Bowl! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Acre Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 9 sacks? Wow, I had forgotten that the line was that good. It also helped that we had the all-time leader in receptions playing for us at wide reciever, and one of the best DBs of all time. 9 - two great things in Skins history: Sonny Jurgenson and the # of sacks the 1991 Redskins gave up. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/1991.htm The only team with more than 1 sack was Philly, with 3, in the final game that we mailed in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son of Gadsden Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 great O line with Helu behind it. Forget Grossman. >:] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Anyone who picks OL is delusional, doesn't really understand modern football, and is stuck in the 1980s. I always get a kick out of replies like this. The obvious answer, is again, both. It's not one or the other. But, I'd like to hear the rationale for why you believe that anyone picking OL is "delusional". I fully disagree with that assessment. I don't care what the trends are in the NFL. A strong offensive line can only help a team. And it's obvious that a quarterback is of utmost importance to a team. But there are always exceptions to rules... Both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.T.real,lights,out Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Star QB! Easy. A QB who can make quick decisions can make a line look much better than it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paloosa Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 If you look at the QB's in amm0409's post you will see one thing in common with all of these QB's. None of them were Heisman trophy winners and none were considered in the top 5 of their draft class either. Well maybe Elway and Manning are the exceptions to the rule. So why would you want Andrew Luck or RGIII as a QB when history proves they aren't the guys that are going to get you to a Super Bowl and win it. History also proves that Heisman trophy winning QB's don't work out either. So the offensive line needs to be there in order to have success in QB play. You can bring up Peyton Manning as an example of that but he benefitted from a good offensive line. He had a quick release and knows the offense in and out. I think that he could win games behind our O-line because he is that good but he is the only one I think can. None of the other elites (maybe Aaron Rodgers) would do as good because they need that O-line support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 The Bucs as a football operation were very happy with Williams. The owner wouldn't pay him what he wanted, but the owner was a bit odd. Even the coach though Williams deserved more.Nobody really doubted that Williams was a VERY GOOD QB when he left to go to the USFL. The Bucs were 9-7 and 5-4 (strike shortened season) w/ Williams and then 2-14 w/o him. Culverhouse treated Williams as a second class citizen and not worthy of his play that is true, McKay wanted him, but still teams speak with contracts in terms of how they value a player. The Bucs overlooked three future SB QB's. And Williams career QB rating is not unlike Grossmans or Dilfers further proving my point. And that Redskins defense that year was really good even if not acknowledged. ---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 08:46 AM ---------- Tell me how likely a team fields one of the greatest defenses EVER? That's why Dilfer won. Good luck getting a HOF LB, two monsters in Siragusa and Adams, and so on.There's a damn good reason LTs are usually the ONLY OL taken in the early first round. Don't disagree with taking LT's and QB's in the first round. But it is apparent after years of ignoring the OL that picks should be used to shore up the line. Look I am for taking a QB this year in the first, all I am saying is that a star QB behind a sieve of a line is not going to make the team a perennial playoff team. You must build a team, a strong OL only enhances a QB's skills by giving him time to throw and a supportive running game. ---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 08:47 AM ---------- Anyone who picks OL is delusional, doesn't really understand modern football, and is stuck in the 1980s. WWKDS - what would KDawg say? Yeah I will go with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 If you look at the QB's in amm0409's post you will see one thing in common with all of these QB's. None of them were Heisman trophy winners and none were considered in the top 5 of their draft class either. Super Bowl XXVI - Mark Rypien, Washington 6th round, pick 146. Super Bowl XXVII - Troy Aikman, Dallas Super Bowl XXVIII - Troy Aikman, Dallas 1st round, 1st pick. Super Bowl XXIX - Steve Young, San Francisco 1st overall pick in the 1984 Supplemental Draft, where NFL teams got to pick up guys from the USFL. Super Bowl XXX - Troy Aikman, Dallas Again, 1st round, 1st overall. Super Bowl XXXI - Bret Favre, Green Bay 2nd round, 33rd overall. Super Bowl XXXII - John Elway, Denver Super Bowl XXXIII - John Elway, Denver 1st round, 1st overall Super Bowl XXXIV - Kurt Warner, St. Louis Undrafted Free Agent Super Bowl XXXV - Trent Dilfer, Baltimore Ravens 1st round, 6th overall Super Bowl XXXVI - Tom Brady, New England 6th round Super Bowl XXXVII - Brad Johnson, Tampa Bay 9th round, pick 227. Super Bowl XXXVIII - Tom Brady, New England Super Bowl XXXIX - Tom Brady, New England Again, 6th rounder. Super Bowl XL - Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh 1st round, 11th overall. Super Bowl XLI - Peyton Manning, Indianapolis 1st round, 1st overall. Super Bowl XLII -Eli Manning, New York Giants 1st round, 1st overall. Super Bowl XLIII -Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh Repeat, 1st round, 11th overall Super Bowl XLIV- Drew Brees, Saints 2nd round, 32 overall. Super Bowl XLV- Aaron Rodgers, Packers 1st round, 24th overall. In addition to you being way off base with your comment that "none were considered top 5 of their draft class either" as 5 of them men listed were taken with the first overall pick, 3 others were taken in the first round. Those are all "top 5 QBs" in their draft class. You got it right with Brady, Johnson, Brees, Warner, Rypien and Favre. So 6/14 isn't bad, I guess. You were 42.8% on the money. Where you got it right was that none of those guys were Heisman Trophy winners. But I'm not sure why that even matters... ---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 09:08 AM ---------- But then again, you didn't get it right there, either. Drew Brees was the 2nd QB taken in the draft class in 2001 behind Vick. So he was top 5 in his class. Brett Favre was the 3rd QB taken in the 1991 NFL Draft, behind Dan McGwire and Todd Marinovich. So you were right on 4/14, paloosa. Which is 28.57%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkekoa Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 A stud QB requires one player...a stud OL requires five... Let's go with the one player...better yet, let's improve that OL so we can protect our stud QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildbill1952 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 For years, I have been an advocate of a strong offensive line, advocating drafting OL every year until the OL is the premier OL in the league. Teams that have done this have historically proved better, even with average QB's. See the Washington Redskin teams with Theismann, Rypien, or Williams. The OL made the average QB and a good set of receivers into Super Bowl winners. With Theismann, only the partying the night before the SuperBowl by a hungover offensive line made a difference in the rout by Oakland. Otherwise, this was the best offense ever fielded by the Redskins. To look at a modern example, see this year's San Francisco 49ers. They have a QB in Alex Smith that was considered below average. After spending precious first and second round picks on the OL, suddenly the offense shines and their record is indicative of the "sudden" improvement drafting an OL brings, far above what drafting Alex Smith brought. For an example of a premier QB with a bad offensive line, look at Sam Bradford. After 2 years of being hit every play, his mechanics, especially his footwork, have deteriorated. Although it will generate arguments, the same may be said of Ramsey, Brunell and Campbell. Although coach-speak during those years said the offensive line was great, the truth is the QB was either being destroyed half the game or at best, had moderate success - not enough to get through the playoffs, but enough to get to the playoffs. The offensive line being the biggest difference between a playoff caliber team and a team in the playoffs. Rule of thumb - any QB + great offensive line > any QB + bad offensive line. The major point being that you can't really judge a QB with a bad offensive line. Any QB with a bad offensive line will not be as good. Any QB with a great offensive line will be better. If you give any QB adeqate time they will eventually find the open receiver. So why this year do I advocate drafting a QB? First, the quantity of QB's. There are easily 3 QB's that should be eligible for this year's draft that easily qualify as future elite QB's - Luck, Barkley ad RGIII. At our current draft position, one of them should be available without mortgaging the farm by trading away draft picks. Second, the two QB's we currently have, even with the OL they have, have shown they are not that good. Third, both QB's are close to 30, meaning any upside they have has already been demonstrated. They have little or no future left. I had high hopes for Beck and love the gunshooter mentality of Rex. But the simple truth is, neither is a long term solution for the Skins. Fourth, the Skins already have a player on the OL in Trent Williams that was worthy of a number 3 or 4 pick. The remainder of the OL should fall after number 16 but before pick 100. This year's draft puts 3 such OL in the range of the Redskins, with approximate picks of 36, 68 and 100. Adding a guard and a Right tackle should be fairly easy within this range. Spending another number 3 to 5 on another OL, although it would be great from an offensive standpoint, would only serve as Trent's replacement. When need is factored in, there just is no one at number 3 to 5 from the OL that is worthy of the pick on a Redskin team that has a good Left Tackle. So for the first time in the last 10 years, I have to advocate someone other than OL in the draft. Too bad they didn't take my advice in previous years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Star QB all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 A stud QB requires one player...a stud OL requires five...Let's go with the one player...better yet, let's improve that OL so we can protect our stud QB. This is the problem with this thread. Having a stud offensive line would really require probabaly at least a significant upgrade at 3 different position. If we could turn that #1 pick into 3 different players that were really likely to be REALLY GOOD. I'd think you have to consider doing it. However, we aren't likely to be able to turn that pick into 3 different players that are going to be really good. You could trade down, but your chances of converting this OL into a stud OL w/ the lower picks you get isn't that great. Your really talking about drafting one stud OL (and maybe a guy that will be good (because you can get OL lower in the draft so you could probably trade out and still get a stud), which isn't going to give you a stud OL), OR a stud QB. Given those options, you take the stud QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 For years, I have been an advocate of a strong offensive line, advocating drafting OL every year until the OL is the premier OL in the league. Teams that have done this have historically proved better, even with average QB's. See the Washington Redskin teams with Theismann, Rypien, or Williams. The OL made the average QB and a good set of receivers into Super Bowl winners. With Theismann, only the partying the night before the SuperBowl by a hungover offensive line made a difference in the rout by Oakland. Otherwise, this was the best offense ever fielded by the Redskins. To look at a modern example, see this year's San Francisco 49ers. They have a QB in Alex Smith that was considered below average. After spending precious first and second round picks on the OL, suddenly the offense shines and their record is indicative of the "sudden" improvement drafting an OL brings, far above what drafting Alex Smith brought. This is a common theme among older fans. They seem to have this nostalgia about them from the days of the Hogs and think that the same approach will translate to success in today's NFL. Nearly every Super Bowl winning team over the last quarter century has had a top 10 QB leading their offense. I don't think it's any kind of freak coincidence. As for the 49ers, they are near the bottom of the NFL with their passing attack (29th). That team is having the success they're having because of a strong defense and running game and the fact that they play in the weakest division in the league. Not to mention no one is familiar with Harbaugh's system just yet. Also, Alex Smith is the most sacked QB in the NFL right now (Roethlisberger and Rodgers are the 3rd and 5th most sacked BTW). So, let's give the 49ers another season and see if they can sustain that success with Smith. My guess is that they won't be able to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterx Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 A star QB makes the OL better, and can make the running game better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Like the SuperBowl Redskins years? Yes you need a good QB, but no team is stopping a stacked OL from dictating the game in the air or the ground. Mark Rypien was sacked nine times, not in a game, in a year. The team ran at will, and he pass at will. You still wear a Members Only jacket, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Seriously, who's got Ray Ban's and red leather jackets with 10 zippers on them in their closet? How about we draft a QB and then draft in the bottom half of the draft for the next ten years? That's where your real Oline talent comes from anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botched Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 It's weird how sometimes an offensive line forgets how to play. Like with the Colts this year. Here are their sack totals from 2008-present. 2008-14 2009-13 2010-16 2011-29 and counting Same bizarre occurrence with the Patriots a few years ago. Fortunately they were able to bounce back in 2009. 2006- 29 2007- 21 2008- 48 2009- 18 I just hope we don't end up with one of these lines that has random, mysterious bad seasons in pass protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 It's weird how sometimes an offensive line forgets how to play. Like with the Colts this year. Here are their sack totals from 2008-present.2008-14 2009-13 2010-16 2011-29 and counting Same bizarre occurrence with the Patriots a few years ago. Fortunately they were able to bounce back in 2009. 2006- 29 2007- 21 2008- 48 2009- 18 I just hope we don't end up with one of these lines that has random, mysterious bad seasons in pass protection. It's werid. Nothing could possibly explain why those lines suddenly got bad. ---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 11:28 AM ---------- How's that overpriced elite QB working out for Oakland (not Campbell)? In the age of the salary cap, too many teams overpay in pursuit of that elusive elite QB. The last time Carson Palmer was considered "elite," George W. Bush was considered a very popular president. ---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 11:32 AM ---------- For the record, our line is not all that terrible. I think it's actually better than Pittsburgh's line. It's probably just as good as Green Bay's line. Those teams have 23 wins right now for what it's worth. Redskins fans can get kind of stupid when it comes to line play because they were blessed to watch arguably the greatest line ever and that line played in an era of slow-footed defenders who you were allowed to mug. The funny thing is this: the Hogs could not block Lawrence Taylor. Fortunately, there was only one Lawrence Taylor in football at the time. Currently, every team has three Lawrence Taylors. And coaches use them in far more creative ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.