PFW "The Way we hear it" NFC East 12-8

[bubba9497]

Giants’ disastrous OL situation could lead to offseason overhaul

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/The+Way+We+Hear+It/default.htm?mode=nfceast

NY Giants

If you’re looking for a reason behind the Giants’ recent offensive breakdowns, look no further than the offensive line. Right now, this is the worst unit in the NFL — mostly because of injuries but also because the team thought it could begin the season with ORT Ian Allen and ORG Tam Hopkins, who was released in training camp, as its starters with little depth behind them. The thinking was that master OL coach Jim McNally could coax strong performances out of the lesser-known players, which he has done in the past. One prominent offensive player told a source close to the team that never before in his career had he feared for his own health and safety as he does playing behind the unit the team currently is fielding. Against the Redskins last week, the Giants were forced to play Jeff Hatch, who had yet to take an offensive snap, at right tackle. That moved Allen, who was benched earlier in the season, to the all-important left side, protecting QB Kerry Collins’ blind side. OL Jeff Roehl, who started at left tackle against Buffalo, clearly was overmatched. Don’t be surprised if the team looks to add at least two linemen next season, with a priority on finding a right tackle.

Dallas

The team has been experimenting with the right side of the offensive line. The new starter at right tackle has been Kurt Vollers, taking over for the benched Ryan Young, but Torrin Tucker will also see time there in an effort to identify who’ll get the bulk of the playing time down the stretch and to evaluate for the future. Head coach Bill Parcells has not been thrilled with Young’s play this season, and the two shared words during Dallas’ Week 14 loss to Philadelphia. Second-year ORG Andre Gurode has not developed the way the team had hoped this season. The main problem has been his lack of quickness. Young worked at right guard — Parcells said it was for “depth” — but the move clearly indicates the team is less than thrilled with its original starters at the two positions.

Philadelphia

Although WLB Nate Wayne is not challenging for a Pro Bowl spot — as Chiefs LB Shawn Barber, the man who played in Wayne’s spot last season, is — he has been a pleasant surprise who has really come on of late. Although he got off to a slow start with his new team, Wayne has looked very comfortable in his role and has adjusted well, becoming a big-play maker. Sources close to the team say Wayne is not doing as much this season as Barber did in Philadelphia last season, but that the team is thrilled with his performance. Defensive coordinator Jim Johnson has told people that the performances of Wayne and MLB Mark Simoneau, the NFC's Defensive Player of the Month for October, have been the two nicest surprises this season.

Washington

Amid a disappointing season, one of the best turnarounds has been the recent play of the offensive line. Much maligned through the first half of the season, when it had surrendered 29 sacks, the unit has given up only seven in the past five games. Part of the reason for this has been the switch at quarterback, where Tim Hasselbeck has been much better at getting rid of the ball faster and stepping up in the pocket better than Patrick Ramsey. But for the most part, the unit has tightened up, even with two starters out. OLG Dave Fiore is out for the year, and OLT Chris Samuels has missed the past two games. But rookie OG Derrick Dockery, who has made vast strides, and OT Brandon Wineyhave played very well recently in the absence of Fiore and Samuels.

[gridironmike]

PT for Dockery and Hasselbeck is a big plus for us. Winey too I suppose.

[Cskin]

Let's hold judgement until we see the results of the Dallas and Philly games. There aren't many better defensive teams to evaluate the progress of the OL as a unit than playing Dallas and Philly both in two of the last three games.

I expect Dockery to show MUCH better against Philly, where he was dominated by Simon and Walker(?). Additionally, we'll see how far the unit has come regarding the blitz.... and both Philly and Dallas plan to blitz the entire team (bench players too) as well as the fans in section 101 on obvious pass plays.

[Art]

The line didn't give up 29 sacks early. The line didn't give up 7 sacks since. Writers are stupid people.

[GB81]

Am I missing something, Art? Are you saying it wasn't the line's fault?

The Redskins did, in fact, give up 29 sacks in their first 8 games. They did, in fact, give up 7 sacks in their last 5.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I think Art is saying that the difference at QB, play-calling, and execution by TEs and RBs contributed to the difference in sacks.

Just my guess.

[Henry]

The LINE didn't give up 29 sacks. The QB was sacked 29 times. There's a difference.

[GB81]

Originally posted by Henry

The LINE didn't give up 29 sacks. The QB was sacked 29 times. There's a difference.

I think it's fair to say that this is a matter of opinion rather than fact. That being said, didn't the writer also intimate that there were other factors. As much as it is commonplace here to dismiss all sportswriters as idiots, I'm trying to figure out where this particular writer went wrong.

[Art]

Originally posted by GGB81

I think it's fair to say that this is a matter of opinion rather than fact. That being said, didn't the writer also intimate that there were toher factors. As much as it is commonplace here to dismiss all sportswriters as idiots, I'm trying to figure out where this particular writer went wrong.

GG, are you NUTS?

This is not at all fair to say this is a matter of opinion rather than fact. Jesus. What's wrong with people? It is a fact the quarterback of the Redskins was sacked 29 times early and 7 times since. It is a fact that the offensive line didn't surrender 29 sacks early and 7 since.

It's a fact. It's not an opinion. Why isn't it? Because we just saw Strahan get TWO sacks while blocked by a tight end. Therefore we know there were at least two plays, just this week, in which a sack was allowed by someone OTHER than the offensive line.

And if an offensive lineman doesn't allow a sack, it means someone else did. And if someone else did, then the writer can't say the offensive line gave up 29 sacks and now 7 sacks. You understand this, right? Writers are idiots. The running backs, as an example, surrendered four sacks to the Cowboys. Not one sack was surrendered by the offensive line.

Could it have been the case that one of those sacks, or another sack similar, was because the line blew an assignment? Perhaps. But, if you watch the Cowboy game you know that's not the case. You generally can tell when the line blows an assignment. Just like you can when the running back does. Or the tight end. Or even the QB.

Please tell me you understand all this. Please.

[GB81]

Have you ever heard someone say "So far this season, the offensive line, backs, receivers and tight ends have allowed 17 sacks?" Is it reasonable to expect this writer to make an effort to express this distinction? There will always be other factors when a QB is sacked.

When people refer to the Redskins record setting accomplishment of 1991, where I believe they only allowed 13 sacks, you will often hear: "The Redskins offensvie line only allowed 13 sacks in 1991." Are you trying to tell me that a tight end didn't pick up a blitz once in that entire season? It's more of a figure of speech.

It just seemed really nit-picky. Then again, maybe I'm being picky. I got his point and I didn't see his expressing it that way as a journalistic shortcoming...

[WallyG3]

Just to nitpick - I consider the TE part of the offensive line, unless split wide.

Now, the running backs, that's another story. They were a major player in allowing all those sacks.

[Art]

It's not a figure of speech at all GG.

I used to be a writer. This is never a figure of speech. I also rarely hear the Redskins number of sacks in 1991 phrased that the line only surrendered that many. I almost always hear it referenced as the team surrendered that many.

Pass protection is not just the offensive line. Not only is it REASONABLE to expect the author to recognize this and express the distinction, but it is necessary for him to considering the offensive line has NEVER been the chief problem we've had this year on the whole. Running backs have. No one who's watched our games can come from them thinking the line is the problem. Everyone who's watched our games knows the backs have been the biggest problem we've had. I'd estimate at least 20 of our sacks have come directly against running backs this year.

But, journalists who don't actually cover at team are often one level deep in their reporting. Like this author. It's a factual error to say the offensive line surrendered 36 sacks on the year. It would NEVER have made it into publication in a real newspaper because it's factually inaccurate. Asking that a statement be factually true for publication ought not be asking too much. I'm surprised you don't have the same expectation of everything you read.

[Montilar]

'91 was nine sacks I believe. And it was not record setting. Marino and the dolphins own the record with 6 or 7 I believe. (off the top of my head)

[Art]

Originally posted by WallyG3

Just to nitpick - I consider the TE part of the offensive line, unless split wide.

Now, the running backs, that's another story. They were a major player in allowing all those sacks.

Wally,

While you are free to consider the TE part of the offensive line, the fact is, the tight end isn't part of the offensive line. The offensive line is comprised of five people. No more. No less. If you have an offensive lineman playing tight end, you STILL have five.

The tight end has its own position coach. It's own responsibilities and requirements. It's not part of the offensive line. It is part of overall pass protection. But, again, if you see fit to include the tight end, that's fine. It's just not really the case despite that inclusion.

[GB81]

I guess I put the burden on myself to understand that--mainly because it is not feasible to effectively determine the responsible party for a sack without reviewing coaches tape. We can guess often with a good deal of accuracy where the breakdown was, but without analysis, there is no way to know who gave up which sacks. Whatever.

I'll tell you this--I'm not aware of too many publications that hold themselves to Art's standard. The Washington Post is not one of them--they repeatedly get the most simple facts wrong.

[Troy Fakeman]

Dear God I hope next year's line plays better....and lives up to expectations.

[WallyG3]

I totally agree that it was NOT the o-line giving up all those sacks.

If you want to try and tell Doc Walker and Don Warren that they were not part of the Hogs because they're not really part of the offensive line, well, you are on your own there.

[Art]

GG,

Once again, it doesn't take careful review. It doesn't take coaching tape. It's not an educated guess here. We know who's been beaten. We know who hasn't. It's not a secret. As for the "Art standard" I fear you are speaking out of school. It's not my standard at all. It is the taught journalistic standard and no paper for written publication would allow such a factual error in an analysis piece. In an editorial, sure. Not otherwise.

[GB81]

I guess I feel differently about assessing blame when it comes to sacks. Let's leave it at that. I was splitting hairs to start with and have most likely drug this on too far.

As to your "standard," I had no contention with the standard--I just don't think many journalists today live up to it. It's easy enough to comply--they just seem too lazy.