Skins O-line

Stacks42 · 11-01-2005, 12:02 PM

Our O-line is horrible, the reason we lost on Sunday is that the Giants were able to rush 4 and get pressure on the Brunell/Ramsey while dropping 7 into coverage. How can 5 lineman + a running back not block only 4 guys, it doesnt make sense. I saw a few times when WRs were wide open but the QB had no time to even find them, let alone throw it in their direction. On the other side of the ball, our 4 D-lineman cannot create any pressure, so we are forced to blitz a corner or LB, that is why Harris looked so bad and out of position. The line coaches on both sides of the ball should be embarrased, these lineman for the most part are hand picked by the line coaches, so they are the ones to blame, not that there isnt enough blame to go around for that poor JV showing on sunday.

MTK · 11-01-2005, 12:08 PM

You know how 4 guys create pressure? When the secondary locks down your receivers.

Brunell simply had nowhere to go with the ball and as a result he wasn't getting the ball out as quickly as he normally does.

When your QB holds on to the ball for more than 2-3 seconds, typically any 4 man rush will create some pressure, unless of course you're talking about the Skins front four, especially with Griffin and big Joe on the sidelines. Injuries are killing our front 4 right now. I really think we miss Noble more than we thought we would. He gave us a solid 3 man rotation but now we're down to Boschetti and Evans... not good.

As for the running game, no excuses, our OL simply was out-hustled and out-muscled.

diehardskin2982 · 11-01-2005, 12:15 PM

matty ~Brunnel did not seem to have any time at all. the D-End on Samuels side had a monster game. It is sad to say but Chris seems like he can't handle a bull rush. Didn't the KC D-end use the same tactic and also have a monster game? They have found a weakness in Chris skill and he needs to fix it fast!

BDBohnzie · 11-01-2005, 12:23 PM

I wouldn't call the O-Line horrible. They played horrible this past Sunday, however as Matty pointed out, in rushing 4, they were dropping 6 & 7 into coverage, and when you only have 3 running pass routes, it's hard for anyone to get open.

Plus, once you have momentum (like Jared Allen, and like Osi Umenyiora), it's hard to stop.

The Skins didn't make the necessary adjustments in order to beat their d-line rush, and pass coverage, and that hurt more than the O-Line.

Southpaw · 11-01-2005, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diehardskin2982

matty ~Brunnel did not seem to have any time at all.

There were plenty of times where he held onto the ball for 3+ seconds. I only saw one sack that was due to him not having time to get rid of the ball.

MTK · 11-01-2005, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southpaw

There were plenty of times where he held onto the ball for 3+ seconds. I only saw one sack that was due to him not having time to get rid of the ball.

Definitely.

They did blitz at times and got to him quickly, but for the most part he had more than enough time to throw and he didn't like what he was seeing.

firstdown · 11-01-2005, 12:57 PM

We also abandoned the run very quickly in the game and that makes rushing the passer that much easier. We had 34 passes to 14 rushing plays and alot of the passes came from the shot gun a dead give away that we were going to pass. I would like to see us hand off the ball some from the shot gun to keep the D guessing if we are going to pass or run. It was just a bad game from coaching to the players and that happens. What will be the most telling is how we come out and play Philly. Everyone can say how bad our lines are but before that game we were ranked pretty high on both sides of the ball. Lets just hope that was one bad game and not a trend. At half time I was thinking OK Gibbs will get things fixed and I thought that fumble on the first play realy hurt our team to get some momentum back on our side. I think if we could have come out and had a scoring drive the game would have been alot closer.

FRPLG · 11-01-2005, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firstdown

We also abandoned the run very quickly in the game and that makes rushing the passer that much easier. We had 34 passes to 14 rushing plays and alot of the passes came from the shot gun a dead give away that we were going to pass. I would like to see us hand off the ball some from the shot gun to keep the D guessing if we are going to pass or run. It was just a bad game from coaching to the players and that happens. What will be the most telling is how we come out and play Philly. Everyone can say how bad our lines are but before that game we were ranked pretty high on both sides of the ball. Lets just hope that was one bad game and not a trend. At half time I was thinking OK Gibbs will get things fixed and I thought that fumble on the first play realy hurt our team to get some momentum back on our side. I think if we could have come out and had a scoring drive the game would have been alot closer.

I don't remember us abandoning the run. When everything is so ineffective you don't get many plays to do much. I can't imagine we had run more than 11 or 12 offensive plays before we were down by 16. It isn't abandoning the run when nothing is working. Its called sucking and not being able effectively establish and execute a game plan. Who knows maybe the game plan called for a higher percentage of passing plays. It didn't seem at all like they just decided to screw running and throw the ball all day when it wasn't necessary.

BDBohnzie · 11-01-2005, 04:35 PM

It's hard to remember abandoning the run, when all the Skins did was go 3 and out all afternoon. The Skins had 5 drives (out of 14) where it went more than 3 plays. 8 punts, 2 fumbles, an interception, and 2 turnover on downs.

The receivers weren't getting open because essentially you have anywhere from 3-5 guys being covered by 6-7 players. The Giants ran a zone slanted towards Moss's side of the field, and since that's the only person Brunell seems to throw it to, we were effectively stopped. There were several times on replay, they showed someone being wide open.

I would compare it to playing someone in Madden, who all he does is throw long passes to one key receiver. Once you run nickel and dime zones towards that side of the field, the offense falls to squat.

jbcjr14 · 11-01-2005, 01:14 PM

We couldn't even run the screen pass effectively and that is one of our better plays. Simply put, we were beaten down badly....question is how will this team respond against a much better Eagle team this week????

firstdown · 11-01-2005, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbcjr14

We couldn't even run the screen pass effectively and that is one of our better plays. Simply put, we were beaten down badly....question is how will this team respond against a much better Eagle team this week????

After Sunday I don't know if I would say a much better Eagle's team.

jdlea · 11-01-2005, 02:02 PM

Brunell had a few sacks where he just held the ball too long. I guess receivers weren't open, I don't know. He just wasn't getting rid of it.

offiss · 11-01-2005, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacks42

Our O-line is horrible, the reason we lost on Sunday is that the Giants were able to rush 4 and get pressure on the Brunell/Ramsey while dropping 7 into coverage. How can 5 lineman + a running back not block only 4 guys, it doesnt make sense. I saw a few times when WRs were wide open but the QB had no time to even find them, let alone throw it in their direction. On the other side of the ball, our 4 D-lineman cannot create any pressure, so we are forced to blitz a corner or LB, that is why Harris looked so bad and out of position. The line coaches on both sides of the ball should be embarrased, these lineman for the most part are hand picked by the line coaches, so they are the ones to blame, not that there isnt enough blame to go around for that poor JV showing on sunday.

I would cut our defensive coaches some slack, lets face it they have had no opportunity to draft or sign any kind of serious talent other than Griffen on the line, and he's not really a pass rusher, for the most part they have been doing a great job with very little, but you can only get by on cunning and guile for so long eventually you have to have talent.

Our offensive line is another story, a lot of high draft picks and big money free agents.

skinsguy · 11-01-2005, 05:21 PM

Alot of those sacks were coverage sacks. If the secondary has your receivers blanketed, then eventually, your QB is either going to be forced to throw the ball away, or get sacked.

That Guy · 11-02-2005, 02:42 AM

the rolls got predictable maybe, brunell basically only throws to one side...

11-01-2005, 12:02 PM	#1
Stacks42 Impact Rookie Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Arlington Va. Age: 48 Posts: 835	Skins O-line Our O-line is horrible, the reason we lost on Sunday is that the Giants were able to rush 4 and get pressure on the Brunell/Ramsey while dropping 7 into coverage. How can 5 lineman + a running back not block only 4 guys, it doesnt make sense. I saw a few times when WRs were wide open but the QB had no time to even find them, let alone throw it in their direction. On the other side of the ball, our 4 D-lineman cannot create any pressure, so we are forced to blitz a corner or LB, that is why Harris looked so bad and out of position. The line coaches on both sides of the ball should be embarrased, these lineman for the most part are hand picked by the line coaches, so they are the ones to blame, not that there isnt enough blame to go around for that poor JV showing on sunday. __________________ The NEXT special teams coordinator

11-01-2005, 12:08 PM	#2
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,568	Re: Skins O-line You know how 4 guys create pressure? When the secondary locks down your receivers. Brunell simply had nowhere to go with the ball and as a result he wasn't getting the ball out as quickly as he normally does. When your QB holds on to the ball for more than 2-3 seconds, typically any 4 man rush will create some pressure, unless of course you're talking about the Skins front four, especially with Griffin and big Joe on the sidelines. Injuries are killing our front 4 right now. I really think we miss Noble more than we thought we would. He gave us a solid 3 man rotation but now we're down to Boschetti and Evans... not good. As for the running game, no excuses, our OL simply was out-hustled and out-muscled.

11-01-2005, 12:15 PM	#3
diehardskin2982 Another Year, another mess. Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,581	Re: Skins O-line matty ~Brunnel did not seem to have any time at all. the D-End on Samuels side had a monster game. It is sad to say but Chris seems like he can't handle a bull rush. Didn't the KC D-end use the same tactic and also have a monster game? They have found a weakness in Chris skill and he needs to fix it fast! __________________ That got ugly fast

11-01-2005, 12:23 PM	#4
BDBohnzie Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Frederick, MD Age: 45 Posts: 4,628	Re: Skins O-line I wouldn't call the O-Line horrible. They played horrible this past Sunday, however as Matty pointed out, in rushing 4, they were dropping 6 & 7 into coverage, and when you only have 3 running pass routes, it's hard for anyone to get open. Plus, once you have momentum (like Jared Allen, and like Osi Umenyiora), it's hard to stop. The Skins didn't make the necessary adjustments in order to beat their d-line rush, and pass coverage, and that hurt more than the O-Line. __________________ Bad Things man, I mean bad things... “WE TOOK HIM IN THE SIXTH ROUND SO WE'RE NOT SMART EITHER.” - Shanny on what the Skins saw in Alfred Morris

11-01-2005, 12:57 PM	#7
firstdown Living Legend Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: chesapeake, va Age: 60 Posts: 15,817	Re: Skins O-line We also abandoned the run very quickly in the game and that makes rushing the passer that much easier. We had 34 passes to 14 rushing plays and alot of the passes came from the shot gun a dead give away that we were going to pass. I would like to see us hand off the ball some from the shot gun to keep the D guessing if we are going to pass or run. It was just a bad game from coaching to the players and that happens. What will be the most telling is how we come out and play Philly. Everyone can say how bad our lines are but before that game we were ranked pretty high on both sides of the ball. Lets just hope that was one bad game and not a trend. At half time I was thinking OK Gibbs will get things fixed and I thought that fumble on the first play realy hurt our team to get some momentum back on our side. I think if we could have come out and had a scoring drive the game would have been alot closer.

11-01-2005, 04:35 PM	#9
BDBohnzie Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Frederick, MD Age: 45 Posts: 4,628	Re: Skins O-line It's hard to remember abandoning the run, when all the Skins did was go 3 and out all afternoon. The Skins had 5 drives (out of 14) where it went more than 3 plays. 8 punts, 2 fumbles, an interception, and 2 turnover on downs. The receivers weren't getting open because essentially you have anywhere from 3-5 guys being covered by 6-7 players. The Giants ran a zone slanted towards Moss's side of the field, and since that's the only person Brunell seems to throw it to, we were effectively stopped. There were several times on replay, they showed someone being wide open. I would compare it to playing someone in Madden, who all he does is throw long passes to one key receiver. Once you run nickel and dime zones towards that side of the field, the offense falls to squat. __________________ Bad Things man, I mean bad things... “WE TOOK HIM IN THE SIXTH ROUND SO WE'RE NOT SMART EITHER.” - Shanny on what the Skins saw in Alfred Morris

11-01-2005, 01:14 PM	#10
jbcjr14 The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Age: 54 Posts: 2,015	Re: Skins O-line We couldn't even run the screen pass effectively and that is one of our better plays. Simply put, we were beaten down badly....question is how will this team respond against a much better Eagle team this week???? __________________ "Work Harder: millions on welfare are counting on you" - Obama 2009 address to Congress.

11-01-2005, 02:02 PM	#12
jdlea Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, VA Age: 40 Posts: 3,109	Re: Skins O-line Brunell had a few sacks where he just held the ball too long. I guess receivers weren't open, I don't know. He just wasn't getting rid of it.

11-01-2005, 05:21 PM	#14
skinsguy Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Greensboro, North Carolina Posts: 6,766	Re: Skins O-line Alot of those sacks were coverage sacks. If the secondary has your receivers blanketed, then eventually, your QB is either going to be forced to throw the ball away, or get sacked. __________________ "Fire Up That Diesel!"

11-02-2005, 02:42 AM	#15
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,553	Re: Skins O-line the rolls got predictable maybe, brunell basically only throws to one side...

Skins O-line

Locker Room Main Forum