![]() |
|
|||||||
| Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
#1 | |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,323
|
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
Quote:
I think you can reasonably add: scheme/play design/playcalling, blitz pick-up/coaching, pocket presence/poisepass protection, throwing motion/release time (ihow fast can the QB set-up and throw a quick pass?) are all elements of pass protection. However the simplest and most directly impactful aspect of pass protection will always begin and end with the OL. Sure, you can scheme and use various factors to compensate for a lack of physical ability at the point of attack. For example *(hypothetical follows) if an OL cannot hold up in pass protection to execute 5 and 7 step drops you have to rely on 3 step drop passing game to move the ball and keep your fingers crossed and hope play-action can create time to throw deeper stuff. Your gonna be heavily dependent upon: quick release, decision making, blitz-pick/reading coverage (coaching), scheme playcalling to create effective play-action chances and to get WRs open in the short passing game etc. But, those 5 and 7 step drop pass plays have effectively been removed from your playbook by the OL and there is literally nothing you can do about it unless you get new OL. Does that mean a team can't work around it and find a way to win? No. But, it certainly makes the job more difficult because it limits how they can win. It would be much easier if that team had adequate pass protection to use 5 and 7 step drop passing game. So while Griff and Garcon co. indirectly improve the pass protection. It won't matter if the pass protection doesn't hold up. At the end of the day the best way and most impactful way to improve pass protection is to actually have players that can win at the point of attack. Hopefully we have some OL that will be equal to the task. Last edited by 30gut; 07-31-2012 at 05:19 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: PA
Age: 47
Posts: 17,460
|
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
Lets make a list of all rostered linemen. I'm thinking we're actually deeper than we're giving ourselves credit for.
Tackles: 77 Brown, Jammal 60 Black, Jordan 74 Polumbus, Tyler 69 Smith, Willie 71 Williams, Trent 68 Compton, Tom 75 Lee, James Guards: 66 Chester, Chris 73 Gettis, Adam 79 Hurt, Maurice 67 LeRibeus, Josh 62 Martinez, Nick 78 Lichtensteiger, Kory (G/C) Centers: 61 Garner, Grant 58 Cook, Erik (C/G) 63 Montgomery, Will (C/G)
__________________
Not sent from a Droid, iPhone, Blackberry or toaster |
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
Fire Bruce NOW
![]() Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 11,434
|
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
Quote:
Impressions from Redskins practice - NFC East Blog - ESPN Personally I'm not joining the sky-is-falling chorus but I am concerned a bit.
__________________
Bruce Allen when in charge alone: 4-12 (.250) Bruce Allen's overall Redskins record : 28-52 (.350) Vinny Cerrato's record when in charge alone: 52-65 (.444) Vinny's overall Redskins record: 62-82 (.430) We won more with Vinny |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
Pro Bowl
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jacksonville, Forida
Posts: 6,412
|
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Gamebreaker
![]() Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,237
|
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
The thread title reminded me of this:
__________________
When life gives you paper jams, turn them into paper footballs! |
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Pro Bowl
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,662
|
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
^^ I think the problem is depth at the tackle position and quality of starter at RT, especially depending on Smith's status.
__________________
24-34 |
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Contains football related knowledge
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 63
Posts: 10,401
|
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
Well, that sucks. I hear what everyone is saying about the lack of talent and depth at tackle - particularly since it sounds as if the guys we were counting on to step up have actually stepped back and Brown is done.
Time for Compton to show us what a steal he was. <sigh>
__________________
Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go. |
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Naega jeil jal naga
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland
Age: 40
Posts: 14,750
|
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
Bring back Rabach.
__________________
"It's nice to be important, but its more important to be nice." - Scooter "I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now." - FRPLG |
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: PA
Age: 47
Posts: 17,460
|
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
__________________
Not sent from a Droid, iPhone, Blackberry or toaster |
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,754
|
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Hug Anne Spyder
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,596
|
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
|
|
|
|
|
#12 | |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,754
|
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
Quote:
Bringing Rabach back would be worse than bringing Stephon Heyer back to fill our vacancy at RT. Casey hasn't played since we cut him. He failed a physical with the Ravens last season. He was good, but all good things... edit: And I think Monty outplayed Rabach as a sub, against who the Titans? |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
The Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fort Bliss, TX
Posts: 2,277
|
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,754
|
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: RatherbeinDC, TX
Posts: 3,062
|
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
LOL, heck might as well suit up George Starke, his a$$ is a Redskins park more than the Shanahans.
__________________
Lafayette, we're here. HTTR. You wern't a bunch of losers on 10-27-14. |
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|