twist Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Originally posted by Art Brunell is, clearly, a superior passer to what McNabb has been, and, while I think you're correct that, today, no one would trade McNabb's future for Brunell's past, the fact is, Brunell is a capable QB who will very likely perform at a better clip than McNabb this year at least in terms of passing numbers. Your comment that the Eagles offensive line being asked to contain the defensive line much longer is simply ludicrous and so implausible I wonder if you actually follow Eagles football. You guys run an offense based on the short passing game. In fact, your line was asked to sustain blocks for FAR shorter periods of time than our offense, which was based on deeper routes. The fact that McNabb gets sacked as often as he does despite his wonderful mobility and quick passing offense is certainly not an endorsement of your line. I think your simply incorrect on that one Art. Mcnabb holds the ball probably longer than any Quarterback in the league. Wether he is waiting for his recievers to get open, or scrambeling around to make a play, he simply dosen't get rid of the ball when he needs to. When he does, its usually dumped off to a runningback that has done all he could for blocking and released into the flat. I find it hard to believe that you aren't aware of this Art. Many of McNabbs so called "Sacks" are either coverage sacks, and many are times when he desided to take off and didn't go anywhere. I agree though that Runyan has had two sub par years and that Jansen, in spurriers system was probably asked to do something of the same while Ramsey was standing back there patting the ball. But, to put all the sacks on the line is simply incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Twist, Which part was I incorrect on. The part that suggests Brunell has been a better passer than McNabb, or the part where it is suggested that you run a West Coast Offense based on the short passing game? Or, in fact, is it that both statements were precisely true and you've added a layer that McNabb, on his own, outside the offense, holds the ball longer than any QB in the league? If so, well, then, perhaps McNabb isn't as good as Brunell afterall, huh? I mean, if he can't play within the offense, and is too stupid to get rid of the ball, perhaps he's not quite as good as some say? In fact, I appreciate that McNabb will use his mobility to try to make things happen when plays are diagnosed and the defense has the advantage. I just suspect he's not actually not getting rid of the ball when he's supposed to on quite the level you perceive, else, we'd certainly hear statements we'd all agree with that McNabb is highly overrated, wouldn't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twist Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 This part "Your comment that the Eagles offensive line being asked to contain the defensive line much longer is simply ludicrous and so implausible I wonder if you actually follow Eagles football." I am saying that the Eagles line gives up more Sacks because of McNabb holding and scrambleing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Originally posted by twist This part Your comment that the Eagles offensive line being asked to contain the defensive line much longer is simply ludicrous and so implausible Except, as you wrote, McNabb doesn't get rid of the ball when he's supposed to, meaning, he's supposed to get rid of the ball earlier, which means, unquestionably, that the line is asked to block for what McNabb's supposed to do, which qualifies as a far shorter period of time than an offense based on deeper developing routes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twist Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 I was makeing a comment about the line Art. When someone rates them as bad pass protecters they should take into account how long they usually have to block. I had a discussion on the Eagles Board with a Giants fan who kept trying to say that their line was just as good as the Eagles line, and he made the same mistake. I read your post as replying to that person who said more open recievers should help the Eagles line, saying the West Coast offence already does help them. I don't think I said anything about McNabb in comparison to Brunell. I have no illusions about McNabbs abilitys, and what he has shown so far. I woulden't rate them in comparison to each other simply as I don't have a clue who is going to be the better player and in what manner. I would have to agree with you that McNabb dosen't fit into, or follow quick passing schemes very well, from what has already been seen. I can't tell you how many times Ive watched an eagles game and yelled at the TV for McNabb to "Throw the ###!!@@ ball!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rydemps Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 The 'Skins could have signed McNabb in the off-season -- his name is Jeff Blake. Check the numbers -- the same person! I think the Eagles should just cut McNabb and save the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Originally posted by twist I was makeing a comment about the line Art. When someone rates them as bad pass protecters they should take into account how long they usually have to block. I had a discussion on the Eagles Board with a Giants fan who kept trying to say that their line was just as good as the Eagles line, and he made the same mistake. I read your post as replying to that person who said more open recievers should help the Eagles line, saying the West Coast offence already does help them. I don't think I said anything about McNabb in comparison to Brunell. I have no illusions about McNabbs abilitys, and what he has shown so far. I woulden't rate them in comparison to each other simply as I don't have a clue who is going to be the better player and in what manner. I would have to agree with you that McNabb dosen't fit into, or follow quick passing schemes very well, from what has already been seen. I can't tell you how many times Ive watched an eagles game and yelled at the TV for McNabb to "Throw the ###!!@@ ball!". Twist, I don't find much of what you've written here at all objectionable. But, my point remains. The Eagles offensive line is not asked to block longer than most. In fact, the offensive line is asked to block shorter and quicker than most, and at times they may be forced to try to block longer because McNabb is back there trying to make things happen. I've absolutely NO doubt, whatsoever, that McNabb's willingness to stand in there and hold the ball leads to sacks that may be more his mistake than a lineman getting beat. I'm simply pointing out the factual truism that in a short passing offense like the one you run, your line is not asked to hold blocks longer. By design they have a tremendous benefit of the ball supposedly coming out quickly. It may be that McNabb negates some of that advantage. It's just not true to suggest your offensive line is forced, schematically, to hold blocks longer than most teams. You're not. For the record, I'd estimate the majority of sacks in the NFL are caused by a QB hanging on to the ball slightly to greatly longer than they should. A very high percentage of the sacks we surrendered a year ago were of that variety, though, a bundle were also the cause of poor scheme up front. I just think it's difficult to suggest -- as the Eagle fan did -- that a WCO based on short-passes asks it's offensive line to hold blocks for all that long a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twist Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Art, while I can't say what the origional posters intention was, I was reading the post to mean the offencive line was asked by the circumbstances to hold off the defence longer, specificly the recievers not getting open. There is no mention of the West Coast offence in the post, so it is perfectly free to mean that. I'm going to file this disagreement of ours under misunderstanding. Also, I'll note, don't be so quick to compare states between the offensive lineman. The Eagles offensive line is asked to contain the d-line much longer. If McNabb can get more open recievers, then sacks should be way down this year. Its only a bonus that the talent level should be up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 Twist, In stating, as he did, that the Eagles offensive line is asked to contain the defensive line much longer, he's expressly bypassing the very system of offense you run and ignoring the key fact when making such a statement. You are, however, free to assume he meant something else, but, knowing Eagle fans, I believe he simply didn't know enough . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinMac Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 Originally posted by Art Your comment that the Eagles offensive line being asked to contain the defensive line much longer is simply ludicrous and so implausible I wonder if you actually follow Eagles football. You guys run an offense based on the short passing game. That's because McNabb can't throw the ball deep with any accuracy. As bang's toon said, "I'm open! I'm open!...Aw, nuts!" Originally posted by twist I think your simply incorrect on that one Art. Mcnabb holds the ball probably longer than any Quarterback in the league. Wether he is waiting for his recievers to get open, or scrambeling around to make a play, he simply dosen't get rid of the ball when he needs to. When he does, its usually dumped off to a runningback that has done all he could for blocking and released into the flat. How many NFL seasons does McNabb need to learn to throw the ball on time? Plus, the fact that his throws are "usually dumped off to a runningback," shouldn't his completion be a little higher than 57%? I guarantee you that when Ramsey has as many starts as McNabb does now, he will be over 60%, and that's chunking the ball deep in Joe Gibbs' offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 Originally posted by Art Twist, I don't find much of what you've written here at all objectionable. But, my point remains. The Eagles offensive line is not asked to block longer than most. In fact, the offensive line is asked to block shorter and quicker than most, and at times they may be forced to try to block longer because McNabb is back there trying to make things happen. I've absolutely NO doubt, whatsoever, that McNabb's willingness to stand in there and hold the ball leads to sacks that may be more his mistake than a lineman getting beat. I'm simply pointing out the factual truism that in a short passing offense like the one you run, your line is not asked to hold blocks longer. By design they have a tremendous benefit of the ball supposedly coming out quickly. It may be that McNabb negates some of that advantage. It's just not true to suggest your offensive line is forced, schematically, to hold blocks longer than most teams. You're not. For the record, I'd estimate the majority of sacks in the NFL are caused by a QB hanging on to the ball slightly to greatly longer than they should. A very high percentage of the sacks we surrendered a year ago were of that variety, though, a bundle were also the cause of poor scheme up front. I just think it's difficult to suggest -- as the Eagle fan did -- that a WCO based on short-passes asks it's offensive line to hold blocks for all that long a time. That's an interesting understanding of the WCO Art. When you say they are asked to block for shorter intervals then other O's you imply that in the huddle McNabb says this is a quick slant give me 2 seconds and then relax. My understanding of the WCO is that it is a succession of reads designed to take what the D gives you and that there is no certain knowledge of where the pass will go in the huddle. The quick slant may be the first read but if that is taken away more time will be required so it's probably best to block until the whistle. Also Reid's version of the WCO involves many sets with 0 backs in the backfield. I'd say 20% of our sacks came in this set and involved the D being confident it could handle our receivers and bringing more rushers than blockers. This is a high risk high reward play with a certain number of sacks during the season being inevitable and considered the cost of doing business. One problem of blocking for a mobile QB is that the play continues when other teams may throw the ball away and often in an attempt to run McNabb is tackled just behind the line and that is recorded as a sack even though the line gave the QB time to make all his reads. Another problem for an OLM is you're never quite certain where the QB is located during the play. With a pocket passer the line protects the pocket and if the receivers are covered they throw the ball away. A mobile QB could be anywhere well into the play and OLM at that point have no idea about what area they should protect. BTW Art.....Could you give me a link for that sacks given up by blockers stat. I'm interested to see how they handle sacks recorded by LB's or DB's and whether total sacks=total sacks given up.......thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenaciousB15 Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 Originally posted by Art Brunell is, clearly, a superior passer to what McNabb has been, and, while I think you're correct that, today, no one would trade McNabb's future for Brunell's past, the fact is, Brunell is a capable QB who will very likely perform at a better clip than McNabb this year at least in terms of passing numbers. Brunell probably will come out of this with a better passing record. And in all respects, he should, considering the talent put around him. Your comment that the Eagles offensive line being asked to contain the defensive line much longer is simply ludicrous and so implausible I wonder if you actually follow Eagles football. You guys run an offense based on the short passing game. In fact, your line was asked to sustain blocks for FAR shorter periods of time than our offense, which was based on deeper routes. The fact that McNabb gets sacked as often as he does despite his wonderful mobility and quick passing offense is certainly not an endorsement of your line. I stopped short of saying the lines play was mcnabbs fault, because I knew you or someone else was going to make the comaback about, "oh well then mcnabb isn't as good as you say he is" or whatever. Becuase that would only bring as distraction to the topic at hand. Someone else brought that up anyway, so here we are. Pocono just covered a few of the points I was going to mention, all be it, better articulated then myself. So to add to that, I think the result of the offensive line stats are not souly placed on any one position. McNabb doesn't release the ball as fast as some, so that causes a disadvantage. The wr's situation was at best mediocre last year. So they arn't doing him an favors. And the o-line isn't going to be as effective as they otherwise could. Now, I don't know if with this next one specifically, I'm I'm going to hit right on with what pocono already said. But most offensive lineman will tell you they prefer a pocket passer. Becuase of the simple fact, that they like to know were the person is that they are protecting. Having a mobile quarterback isn't as great for an offensive linemans stats as it might seem. It ain't all gravy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.