Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

The "Portis vs Betts" thread got me thinking about whether the problem is really all down to our O-Line. Maybe CP isn't declining that badly, and maybe it's just a case of our line being so destroyed that, as several posters have posited, "even [LT | Payton | Sanders] couldn't run behind this line".

With that in mind I decided to check some stats and try to identify some other teams who have a bad O-line, and see what their run game numbers look like. The basic premise I used to select these other teams was to look for teams who have given up a lot of sacks. Admittedly, this allows for things like coverage sacks, and doesn't correlate 100% to run blocking, but I didn't want to use any run game averages in the calculation since that could be tainted by a talent issue at the RB position.

Here are the NFL leaders in team sacks allowed:

1 [URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=08"][COLOR=#0000ff]Detroit Lions[/COLOR][/URL] 35
2 [URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=21"][COLOR=#0000ff]Philadelphia Eagles[/COLOR][/URL] 27
3 [URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=25"][COLOR=#0000ff]San Francisco 49ers[/COLOR][/URL] 26
4 [URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=01"][COLOR=#0000ff]Atlanta Falcons[/COLOR][/URL] 25
5 [URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=14"][COLOR=#0000ff]St. Louis Rams[/COLOR][/URL] 25
6 [URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=13"][COLOR=#0000ff]Oakland Raiders[/COLOR][/URL] 22
7 [URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=03"][COLOR=#0000ff]Chicago Bears[/COLOR][/URL] 21
8 [URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=12"][COLOR=#0000ff]Kansas City Chiefs[/COLOR][/URL] 20
9 [URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=16"][COLOR=#0000ff]Minnesota Vikings[/COLOR][/URL] 20
10 [URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=20"][COLOR=#0000ff]New York Jets[/COLOR][/URL] 20
11 [URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=30"][COLOR=#0000ff]Jacksonville Jaguars[/COLOR][/URL] 20

REDSKINS: 12 sacks allowed

And now, those same teams yards per carry average, and % of rushing plays:

[URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=08"][COLOR=#0000ff]Detroit Lions[/COLOR][/URL] 4.2 - 34.7%
[URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=21"][COLOR=#0000ff]Philadelphia Eagles[/COLOR][/URL] 4.5 - 40.8%
[URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=25"][COLOR=#0000ff]San Francisco 49ers[/COLOR][/URL] 4.1 - 38.0%
[URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=01"][COLOR=#0000ff]Atlanta Falcons[/COLOR][/URL] 3.9 - 37.7%
[URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=14"][COLOR=#0000ff]St. Louis Rams[/COLOR][/URL] 3.5 - 37.1%
[URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=13"][COLOR=#0000ff]Oakland Raiders[/COLOR][/URL] 4.3 - 50.8%
[URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=03"][COLOR=#0000ff]Chicago Bears[/COLOR][/URL] 3.2 - 38.9%
[URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=12"][COLOR=#0000ff]Kansas City Chiefs[/COLOR][/URL] 3.3 - 41.0%
[URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=16"][COLOR=#0000ff]Minnesota Vikings[/COLOR][/URL] 5.2 - 49.2%
[URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=20"][COLOR=#0000ff]New York Jets[/COLOR][/URL] 3.5 - 43.7%
[URL="http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=30"][COLOR=#0000ff]Jacksonville Jaguars[/COLOR][/URL] 4.5 - 52.5%

REDSKINS: 3.5 - 49.1%

So what conclusions to draw from this?

First, we are 19th in the league in sacks allowed, yet only four teams have a worse running game than ours. Despite this, we still choose to rush more than 24 other teams in the league, even those who have much higher yards per rush than we do.

Second, our rush averages put us on par with the following teams: Chicago, St. Louis, KC, NYJ, Seattle, GB, New Orleans. Most of those teams are sub .500 clubs, with the exception of Seattle (sitting at 4-3) and the improbable Packers, who are hanging on by the grace of Favre and Cortisone.

Third, our play selection puts us near these teams: Minnesota, Indy, New England (!), Oakland, San Diego. Obviously Indy and New England are a tier above everyone else in the league, but San Diego appears to be righting the ship somewhat, and Oakland and Minnesota are both languishing.

The team that is closest to our yards per carry and play selection is Buffalo, at 3.6 ypc with 50.8% running plays (versus our 3.5 / 49.1%). They gave up 16 sacks versus our 12 and are 3-4 compared to our 4-3. Ironic, I suppose considering our recent Buffalo ties with Gggrilliamss and London Fletcher.

What I can't make sense of are teams like Minnesota, Oakland, Jacksonville, Detroit and Philly who also appear to have terrible lines but are having a lot more success running the ball (based on yd/carry). All of those teams have given up a lot more sacks than we have, but have rush averages over 4.0.

Is is still so crystal clear that nobody could run behind this line? I'm not so sure.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

[quote=dgack;371300]
So what conclusions to draw from this?

First, we are 19th in the league in sacks allowed, yet only four teams have a worse running game than ours. Despite this, we still choose to rush more than 24 other teams in the league, even those who have much higher yards per rush than we do.[/quote]

The reason we rank well on sacks allowed is partly because we don't pass as much as other teams. If we passed more often, we'd get sacked more often. Also, Todd Wade's strength is pass protection, he's a terrible run blocker.

[quote=dgack;371300]Second, our rush averages put us on par with the following teams: Chicago, St. Louis, KC, NYJ, Seattle, GB, New Orleans. Most of those teams are sub .500 clubs, with the exception of Seattle (sitting at 4-3) and the improbable Packers, who are hanging on by the grace of Favre and Cortisone.[/quote]

Not sure what the point is here. If you're crappy at running, you're going to need a strong passing game or a strong defense to balance it out. The Packers have the passing and the defense, we have the defense.

[quote=dgack;371300]Third, our play selection puts us near these teams: Minnesota, Indy, New England (!), Oakland, San Diego. Obviously Indy and New England are a tier above everyone else in the league, but San Diego appears to be righting the ship somewhat, and Oakland and Minnesota are both languishing.[/quote]

Judging by the teams you're listing there, play selection obviously means jack. You can be dominant with this level of play selection, like NE and Indy. Or you can suck, like Oakland. It comes down to executing, not playcalling.

[quote=dgack;371300]The team that is closest to our yards per carry and play selection is Buffalo, at 3.6 ypc with 50.8% running plays (versus our 3.5 / 49.1%). They gave up 16 sacks versus our 12 and are 3-4 compared to our 4-3. Ironic, I suppose considering our recent Buffalo ties with Gggrilliamss and London Fletcher.[/quote]

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

[quote=dgack;371300]What I can't make sense of are teams like Minnesota, Oakland, Jacksonville, Detroit and Philly who also appear to have terrible lines but are having a lot more success running the ball (based on yd/carry). All of those teams have given up a lot more sacks than we have, but have rush averages over 4.0.[/quote]

Minnesota has a top 3 offensive line in the NFL, with Bryant McKinnie, Matt Birk, and Steve Hutchinson. They have a high yards per carry largely because Adrian Peterson has made some amazing moves once he's gotten into the secondary, and broken them open. Detroit has above 4.0 because they never run the ball, so teams look to defend the pass first. If they ran the ball more often, defenses would begin defending it, and the yards per carry would go down. Philly has a pretty strong offensive line, featuring all-pro Shawn Andrews. Plus, like Detroit, they throw the ball more often, and things open up for Westbrook who also tends to make big plays like Adrian Peterson. These teams have given up more sacks than we have because they throw the ball more often.

[quote=dgack;371300]Is is still so crystal clear that nobody could run behind this line? I'm not so sure.[/quote]

To me, it's never been clearer. Pass protection and run blocking are two totally different things, but you seem to be assuming that if you're good at one you must be good at the other. Without Randy Thomas, we don't have a lineman athletic enough to get around the edge on pulls. And our line isn't big enough to just push straight forward. Plus, we tend to run a lot of zone blocking schemes, which take a lot of chemistry amongst the linemen. The group we have in there right now barely know each other's names.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

To me, it seems our line is best suited for the quick hitters, not the drawn out off tackle runs. They seem to struggle holding blocks. The quick hitters between the guards seem to work more for us. I would use more of those plays, to get the LBs cheating to the middle. then have CP bounce a few outside. Fact is, the OLINE is not that good, its not horrible, but not that good. I think we have to be able to use quick plays, 3 step drops, quick screens, slants, outs ect. Once teams feel we are getting rid of the ball quicker and start to respect those plays, they will stop stacking the line, put more people in coverage, stop so much run blitzing, and we should be able to run the ball with a little success. Al Saunders needs to be given a little freedom and get into a rhythm. O coordinators need to get a rhythm just like a running back, or a QB.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

Offensive lines in Seattle, St. Louis, KC and NYJ are having an awful time opening running lanes for their backs. And, to no surprise, Shawn Alexander, Steven Jackson, Larry Johnson, and Thomas Jones are having a really hard time running the ball. Did all of those guys suddenly lose their talent or desire to win? No and the same is true of Portis.

If Portis had not been injured in 2006 making an all-out effort to tackle a guy, we wouldn't be talking about Portis having lost it. We would simply be saying that Portis, like Jackson, Alexander, Johnson, and Jones is a victim of circumstance. To be honest, it kind of makes me nauseous to trash a guy like Portis who goes all out on every play (and is worse for the wear for it).

I do appreciate the stats and thought that you have put into this thread dgack. Your posts have been among the most coherent and best-supported on this site in the past week or so. But, putting the stats aside, are you honestly seeing the O-line doing a good job opening lanes? If so, why is Betts rushing for under 3 yards per carry? I realize that Betts needs to find a rhythm, but less than 3 yards per carry (the worst of his career)?

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

Schneed, I wasn't making any "points" with comparisons to those teams, just seeing what fell out of the stats. The Buffalo comparison was an attempt to see what team is closest to us in terms of play selection and rushing effectiveness.

To me what these numbers mean are one of three things:

1 -- We are not calling plays that are suited to the strengths of the personnel we have (healthy)

2 -- Different personnel could be more effective running behind the line we're currently fielding (this one seems the most contentious issues)

3 -- We are simply so injury depleted that we can't run effectively.

It seems like many are firmly behind #3. I can accept that run blocking and pass blocking are not the same thing, but I question whether they are so night-and-day different that we are basically without hope until our line "heals" or we upgrade there.

SGG, I had much of the same thoughts when I looked at KC, St. Louis, and Seattle -- though Alexander has also been injured a lot and is on the downside of an extremely prolific career. LJ and Jackson are legitimate comparisons, but Jones is also a pretty tired journeyman back.

Again, I'm not trashing the effort the dude gives. Nor am I saying that the line is doing a great job making holes for dudes to hit. But I don't think that we can rely on the same "classic Redskins" gameplan that we employ with a healthy O-Line anymore. Why aren't we running more screens, for example? This discussion about CP's effectiveness is not all about him breaking down (though I think that's a legitimate concern). It's also about how he's being misused in this offense right now.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

[QUOTE=dgack;371329]SGG, I had much of the same thoughts when I looked at KC, St. Louis, and Seattle -- though Alexander has also been injured a lot and is on the downside of an extremely prolific career. LJ and Jackson are legitimate comparisons, but Jones is also a pretty tired journeyman back.

Again, I'm not trashing the effort the dude gives. Nor am I saying that the line is doing a great job making holes for dudes to hit. But I don't think that we can rely on the same "classic Redskins" gameplan that we employ with a healthy O-Line anymore. Why aren't we running more screens, for example? This discussion about CP's effectiveness is not all about him breaking down (though I think that's a legitimate concern). It's also about how he's being misused in this offense right now.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. But I do think that Thomas Jones is a legit back. He had several bad years in Arizona (which, prior to Grimm's arrival, didn't have a running game), but he was also a bona fide stud in Chicago. He had over 2,500 rushing yards and about 2,800 total yards in 2 seasons. Not to mention the fact that for much of that time he was playing in an offense that everyone knew ran, ran, and ran the ball.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;371322]Offensive lines in Seattle, St. Louis, KC and NYJ are having an awful time opening running lanes for their backs. And, to no surprise, Shawn Alexander, Steven Jackson, Larry Johnson, and Thomas Jones are having a really hard time running the ball. Did all of those guys suddenly lose their talent or desire to win? No and the same is true of Portis.

If Portis had not been injured in 2006 making an all-out effort to tackle a guy, we wouldn't be talking about Portis having lost it. We would simply be saying that Portis, like Jackson, Alexander, Johnson, and Jones is a victim of circumstance. To be honest, it kind of makes me nauseous to trash a guy like Portis who goes all out on every play (and is worse for the wear for it).

I do appreciate the stats and thought that you have put into this thread dgack. Your posts have been among the most coherent and best-supported on this site in the past week or so. But, putting the stats aside, are you honestly seeing the O-line doing a good job opening lanes? If so, why is Betts rushing for under 3 yards per carry? I realize that Betts needs to find a rhythm, but less than 3 yards per carry (the worst of his career)?[/quote]Aren't Alexander and Larry Johnson in the same boat as Portis (if not worse) in terms of abuse? I think that supports dgack's argument more than anything.

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that really successful or really awful running games aren't to the credit or fault of their respective offensive lines. But I'd like to take dgack's argument in a different direction for a second.

So much of what an offensive line does is executed within the first seven yards of the play. No lineman or TE goes downfield to block a safety. Therefore, once the back gets through the LB level, he's own his own out there.

Well, the 2006 Redskins have fewer than 5 runs over ten yards this year. No runs over 20 yards.

If you truncate long runs across the league, the Redskins run blocking actually comes out pretty average ([URL="http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol.php"]ALY is my stat of reference[/URL]). Granted this ALY ranking is at a three year low for us (for obvious reasons).

However, our YPC ranks 30th in the league only ahead of Chicago and Houston. Portis' YPC is higher than the teams YPC, but he also has more than 2/3 of the teams' carries. He's not creating big plays even when he has blocking.

Here's the point: even with injuries, plenty of teams have worse offensive lines than us. Wade and Fabini have not been bad in the run game. Fabini has been a pleasant surprise overall. But Portis isn't reading the holes well and he's not creating any yards beyond what a typical run-of-the-mill back would be.

Now whether Betts can be better is an enitrely different discussion, but I will say this: if he's not capable of doing any better, we really shouldn't be wasting plays running the football.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

I'll state the obvious - a good offense starts with a good offensive line. There are no exceptions to that rule that I can think of. A promising redskins offense has not been good mainly because of injuries to the offensive linemen. Without these injuries, the team would have a much different outlook.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

If Betts gets 40 more carries and still can't pull up around 3.5, then we have a bigger issue with the offensive line than we thought.

And we are already thinking its pretty bad.

If the absolutely most reasonably optimistic outcome of a running play is a 6 yard gain (which seems to be the case), why not throw almost every play?

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

Thanks, GTripp, for supporting some of my thoughts with a lot more thoroughly researched data points.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;371336]Fair enough. But I do think that Thomas Jones is a legit back. He had several bad years in Arizona (which, prior to Grimm's arrival, didn't have a running game), but he was also a bona fide stud in Chicago. He had over 2,500 rushing yards and about 2,800 total yards in 2 seasons. Not to mention the fact that for much of that time he was playing in an offense that everyone knew ran, ran, and ran the ball.[/quote]

Sure, didn't mean to imply that he sucked, just that he's at the end of his career (though he doesn't have a lot of miles on his tires -- his average carries per game is well below 20, and he's only broken 300 carries in a season once). That said, the guy is 29, and will never be in the same class as a Shaun Alexander or Larry Johnson. Or even a Clinton Portis on an off-year quite honestly.

I'd say he's an above average, productive NFL RB, but by no means a feature/franchise back or a stud.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

Maybe it's just the overall direction the offense has been headed in. First there's an aggressive play here and there on the first drive. No three and out but an overthrown ball or dropped pass which leads to punt. The next drive is run, run pass and three and out. The defense creates a turnover and the offense scores a TD from the redzone. However after halftime, the game plan becomes defense first offense second. The playbook closes and the running game is stopped. If a turnover occurs, we lose the game because not enough points were generated by the offense. In a nutshell, to beat this team, a defense needs to put pressure on Campbell and force a turnover which New England did. 17 points alone was scored from turnovers. Mangini is the pupil of Belicheck and he will certainly send some pressure to Campbell. The question I have is where is the two step drop pass, or the draw play or maybe the shuffle pass? There is no creativity and agggression involved in this offense and the players look dispondent and out of sinc with one another.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

[quote=warriorzpath;371348]I'll state the obvious - a good offense starts with a good offensive line. There are no exceptions to that rule that I can think of. A promising redskins offense has not been good mainly because of injuries to the offensive linemen. Without these injuries, the team would have a much different outlook.[/quote]I totally agree that a good line almost always equates to good offensive play. Our starting line on paper looked solid, and it's just extremely bad luck that any team would lose one side of their O-Line by week two. The backups we have are decent fill-ins for a game or two. The FO must add higher quality depth during the offseason, especially since most of our starting O-linemen are around 30 or older.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

One other thing that compounds your stats, dgack, is how many backs/TEs we keep in to block. I bet we run less 3WR and far less 4WR than most teams. That lowers our sack numbers but does NOT point to a good O-line--quite the opposite in fact. Given Gibbs philosophy of max protect, it's hard to read from pass-pro to anything about the running game.

Bottom line: our best run blockers were Thomas and Jansen--in 2005 we ran it there most. We lost BOTH of them in 2 weeks. Now we can't run. I spy a causal relationship here, but maybe it's just coincidence. Not to mention that Dock was a better power-run blocker than Kendal.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

Oh, and GREAT THREAD, Dgack--very high-level discussion here. Refreshing after all the shrill nonsense of late.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

Thanks, JW. Just trying to advance the conversation a little ;)

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

I've wondered the same thing, dgack. I tend to think that we still would have struggled on offense even if Jon Jansen and Randy Thomas were in the lineup and everyone else was perfectly healthy. Though that's just a feeling and not based on statistical facts. But Campbell is still learning, Santana Moss is in a funk, Brandon Lloyd has been an outrageous disappointment, and Randle El can't do everything himself. That part wouldn't change with any combination of healthy O-linemen.

I do think there's something to the playcalling, and adjusting your offensive scheme to the players we have. That's something we haven't done, and it's a legitimate fault of coaching.

The offensive line is what it is, and it's not getting any better. The guys we have now have to step up and above all open up some running lanes. They aren't, and it's killing this offense.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

I sure wish we got the chance to see where this offense would be if we hadn't lost Jansen and Thomas. Thomas especially is so valuable in the running game on pulls.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

When asked in his Monday presser about adjusting the run game, Gibbs was strangely forthright about having some ideas about changes--check that moment out on skins.com. Usually he's all noncommittal and "we just need to be smarter, etc." Here he said he had some ideas for changes, though, needless to say, he wouldn't elaborate.

I do think we can better maximize what this line can do. We better do that fast. But I still say (as per the other thread on this) that Wade has to go. The Jets are the team to try some new stuff on, especially with Vilma done.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

[quote=JWsleep;371600]When asked in his Monday presser about adjusting the run game, Gibbs was strangely forthright about having some ideas about changes--check that moment out on skins.com. Usually he's all noncommittal and "we just need to be smarter, etc." Here he said he had some ideas for changes, though, needless to say, he wouldn't elaborate.

I do think we can better maximize what this line can do. We better do that fast. But I still say (as per the other thread on this) that Wade has to go. The Jets are the team to try some new stuff on, especially with Vilma done.[/quote]


I think he also said that personell changes would probably NOT happen. I, for one, would like to see more of Betts. Especially on draw plays. Clinton sort of skip-to-my-lous on those whereas Betts just takes off. Clinton generally looks hesitant to me.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

On his radio show to today (archived on skins.com) Gibbs hinted at more Betts, in response to a caller's question. We'll see!

Also, Gibbs made a point that gave me some heart (and I know all the negative folk out there will spin this--whatever): Near the end of the game at the Pats, the coaches went to their starters and asked them if they'd like to come out--after all , the game was long since lost. NONE of them came out. Not one. He mentioned Samuels saying: no, I'm going to finish it, rather than slink off with my tail between my legs. And then they scored that "meaningless" late TD. Maybe I'm grasping at straws, but hopefully it will build from here.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

i say why dont we run the 2 minute offense the entire game...it seems to me we get a lot more productivity that way...our offensive line is beat up badly...walking wounded ,mostly and it takes time for injuries to heal of which we have none...

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;371538]I've wondered the same thing, dgack. I tend to think that we still would have struggled on offense even if Jon Jansen and Randy Thomas were in the lineup and everyone else was perfectly healthy. Though that's just a feeling and not based on statistical facts. But Campbell is still learning, Santana Moss is in a funk, Brandon Lloyd has been an outrageous disappointment, and Randle El can't do everything himself. That part wouldn't change with any combination of healthy O-linemen.

I do think there's something to the playcalling, and adjusting your offensive scheme to the players we have. That's something we haven't done, and it's a legitimate fault of coaching.

The offensive line is what it is, and it's not getting any better. The guys we have now have to step up and above all open up some running lanes. They aren't, and it's killing this offense.[/QUOTE]

I agree with your points here....alot, particularly with adjusting your offense to what you have that works. I sit and watch every week and wonder if we even have Moss/ARE running down the field at all on pass plays, as we usually only throw 1 or 2 balls over 20 yards....especially as of late. I know I'm still just blowing off some steam, but all these excuses about the injuries to the oline vs. portis doesn't have IT anymore are just driving me nuts. Good teams and good coaches FIND ways to win, we are finding ways to lose...and it kills me to mention Gibbs and not good coaching in the same sentence. I think we all basically agree that we have some really good and some great players here, we are just not using them as effectively as we could.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

It would be ridiculous for you guys to try to say that the o-line isn't a good part of it. It's not exactly the o-line's fault Jason fumbled plenty of times on Sunday but they are responsible for protecting him and he get hit from his blindside more times than he should have. O-line issues make it tough for any quarterback to play yet alone one with a little under a year of experience.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

good post but i cant be swayed into thinking its anything but our line. at best, its a combination of many things, but mostly the line. we're hurting bad on the line.

game played in the trenches, blah, blah.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

If I'm putting together a football team tomorrow, the first unit I start with is the offensive line. Everything that's done on offense starts with the line. At full strength our line is better than average, but with all the injuries this year it's extremely difficult to acomplish the things you want to do as an offense. Our backup linemen have not been able to perform at a level high enough that the entire offense does not struggle.

We hear the phrase often "everyone has to step up" well, that sounds good, but the reality is "you can't get blood out of a turnip", either you can do the job or you can't. With the type offense we run, the O-line is vital because it's predicated on the running game. With out line in disarray, the running game suffers, when the running game suffers, so will the passing game because much of what we do in the passing game comes off play action. When teams know you can't run the ball, play action becomes useless, and the passing game stagnant.

I'm convinced, the only way our offense will meet with any measure of success, we have to find a way to be more successful running the ball, less max protection, and more three wide reciever sets. When you have to give O-linemen help in pass protection, it limits your options otherwise, all of which illustrates why stability, and execution is so vital to the success of an offensive unit.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

It's the O-Line and bad playcalling ... Fire Saunders!

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

[QUOTE=Longtimefan;371696]We hear the phrase often "everyone has to step up" well, that sounds good, but the reality is "you can't get blood out of a turnip", either you can do the job or you can't. With the type offense we run, the O-line is vital because it's predicated on the running game. With out line in disarray, the running game suffers, when the running game suffers, so will the passing game because much of what we do in the passing game comes off play action. When teams know you can't run the ball, play action becomes useless, and the passing game stagnant.[/QUOTE]

To this I'd say scrap the run-first mentality, and let your offense evolve into a pass-first scheme interspersed with running plays. I'm not suggesting a return to the Fun N' Gun or Run-and-shoot or anything. But whatever we're trying to do now certainly isn't working.

Looks to me like we're overloaded with wideouts anyway.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;372111]To this I'd say scrap the run-first mentality, and let your offense evolve into a pass-first scheme interspersed with running plays. I'm not suggesting a return to the Fun N' Gun or Run-and-shoot or anything. But whatever we're trying to do now certainly isn't working.

Looks to me like we're overloaded with wideouts anyway.[/QUOTE]


I'm here in agreement with your approach, but as we all know Gibbs does not share in our philosophy. He has a way of doing things that will forever reflect what made him successful. Gibbs won three SB's with the run oriented offense and it's going to be difficult for him to adopt any other avenue in an atempt to duplicate that success. I will never be one to say the way he desires to met his goals cannot be accomplished, but so far, with this team (the last five games of the 05 season being the exception) he has not been able to make it happen.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

Ok gentlemen, I have been reading your posts for 6 years and now I have actually joined so I can reply to this. I realize this is probably old hash but I have to say it.

-Was it Mark Rypien or the O-line that got us the Superbowl in 91.

When you get handed a football and someone is already standing in your back yard it makes it hard to see a running lane much less go through any of your reads. The front line is our problem and Joe knows that, that is why we are not seeing any TD's to our recievers. He is keeping it short and sweet and to the point. You cannot give a young QB 2 seconds to get rid of the ball he needs a Mark Rypien Average of 4-5 seconds to get rid of it. With that being said, Tom Brady could have stood in our back field and not had any production either.

Thank you for all of the entertainment and intelligent insight over the years.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

[QUOTE=tmandoug1;372258]Ok gentlemen, I have been reading your posts for 6 years and now I have actually joined so I can reply to this. I realize this is probably old hash but I have to say it.

-Was it Mark Rypien or the O-line that got us the Superbowl in 91.

When you get handed a football and someone is already standing in your back yard it makes it hard to see a running lane much less go through any of your reads. The front line is our problem and Joe knows that, that is why we are not seeing any TD's to our recievers. He is keeping it short and sweet and to the point. You cannot give a young QB 2 seconds to get rid of the ball he needs a Mark Rypien Average of 4-5 seconds to get rid of it. With that being said, Tom Brady could have stood in our back field and not had any production either.

Thank you for all of the entertainment and intelligent insight over the years.[/QUOTE]

Excellent first post! Welcome to the board!

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

[QUOTE=tmandoug1;372258]Ok gentlemen, I have been reading your posts for 6 years and now I have actually joined so I can reply to this. I realize this is probably old hash but I have to say it.

-Was it Mark Rypien or the O-line that got us the Superbowl in 91.

When you get handed a football and someone is already standing in your back yard it makes it hard to see a running lane much less go through any of your reads. The front line is our problem and Joe knows that, that is why we are not seeing any TD's to our recievers. He is keeping it short and sweet and to the point. You cannot give a young QB 2 seconds to get rid of the ball he needs a Mark Rypien Average of 4-5 seconds to get rid of it. With that being said, Tom Brady could have stood in our back field and not had any production either.

Thank you for all of the entertainment and intelligent insight over the years.[/QUOTE]

Welcome aboard. You've seriously been reading for 6 years and just posted your first now? That's pretty incredible. Far more restraint than I have.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

[quote=bigSkinsfan61;371622]i say why dont we run the 2 minute offense the entire game...it seems to me we get a lot more productivity that way...our offensive line is beat up badly...walking wounded ,mostly and it takes time for injuries to heal of which we have none...[/quote]
Well that may sound good but most of the time when a team is using its 2 min. O is because they are behind in the game and are up against a D thats playing more prevent stuff which allows more yards.

Re: Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line
 

[QUOTE=tmandoug1;372258]Ok gentlemen, I have been reading your posts for 6 years and now I have actually joined so I can reply to this. I realize this is probably old hash but I have to say it.

-Was it Mark Rypien or the O-line that got us the Superbowl in 91.

When you get handed a football and someone is already standing in your back yard it makes it hard to see a running lane much less go through any of your reads. The front line is our problem and Joe knows that, that is why we are not seeing any TD's to our recievers. He is keeping it short and sweet and to the point. You cannot give a young QB 2 seconds to get rid of the ball he needs a Mark Rypien Average of 4-5 seconds to get rid of it. With that being said, Tom Brady could have stood in our back field and not had any production either.

Thank you for all of the entertainment and intelligent insight over the years.[/QUOTE]

Good post! Hope we don't have to wait another 6 years for the next one! ;)

Agree completely about time in the pocket, especially with a young QB like JC. Funny how people consistently overlook this, thinking it's all about the QB. Sure you've got to have skills, but without time, VERY few people can execute. And the long throw especially is difficult--you end up dumping off to short receivers. Sound familiar?