We've got big trouble on the OL.

[NC_Skins]

LT Willie Smith
LG Mo Hurt
C Monty
RG Chris Chester
RT Tyler Polumbus


These guys were the starters in the last 4 games for us and they performed well.

So all you chicken littles, remind me again of why we should be panicking?

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

LT Willie Smith
LG Mo Hurt
C Monty
RG Chris Chester
RT Tyler Polumbus


These guys were the starters in the last 4 games for us and they performed well.

So all you chicken littles, remind me again of why we should be panicking?

and that was w rex

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

LT Willie Smith
LG Mo Hurt
C Monty
RG Chris Chester
RT Tyler Polumbus


These guys were the starters in the last 4 games for us and they performed well.

So all you chicken littles, remind me again of why we should be panicking?

Thank you. With that line-up, against Philly, NYG, Minnesota and NE, we gave up seven sacks.

Also, over the course of the year, we gave up as many sacks as Green Bay (41 each) but we also had 40 more passing attempts then they did. [In fairness, We allowed 108 QB hits to their 71].

As someone said, that was with the Statue of Rex and John "Go deep, I'll hit you at the first down marker" Beck. We have a concern at RT. A body and scheme will be found to make it work.

Day Five of training camp and the sky is most definitely falling.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

LT Willie Smith
LG Mo Hurt
C Monty
RG Chris Chester
RT Tyler Polumbus


These guys were the starters in the last 4 games for us and they performed well.

So all you chicken littles, remind me again of why we should be panicking?

If we had to go a full season with these guys I'd be pretty concerned.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

If we had to go a full season with these guys I'd be pretty concerned.

...and yet they handled some of the best defensive lines in the NFL?? (see JR's post)


You guys absolutely kill me.


Hatters!

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

...and yet they handled some of the best defensive lines in the NFL?? (see JR's post)


You guys absolutely kill me.


Hatters!

Your's and Joe's argument is a good one.

However, multiple reports from camp say that Polumbus and Smith have struggled mightily. If they have regressed, then the argument for what they did last year is moot and the RT position is a concern.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Your's and Joe's argument is a good one.

However, multiple reports from camp say that Polumbus and Smith have struggled mightily. If they have regressed, then the argument for what they did last year is moot and the RT position is a concern.

Let's watch a few pre-season and regular season games before we edge closer to that cliff. I think a few of us are saying lets wait and see mentality because we know it's only 1 week into training camp. You all very well may be right, but I think it's way too soon to start worrying.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Let's watch a few pre-season and regular season games before we edge closer to that cliff. I think a few of us are saying lets wait and see mentality because we know it's only 1 week into training camp. You all very well may be right, but I think it's way too soon to start worrying.

Yep. Wait and see is fine. We'll know more about 8 days from now.

On that note, only 8 days until Skins football!

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Your's and Joe's argument is a good one.

However, multiple reports from camp say that Polumbus and Smith have struggled mightily. If they have regressed, then the argument for what they did last year is moot and the RT position is a concern.

Yes. In camp, they appeared to have struggled. Heading into the offseason, however, it appeared that they were more than capable of handling a starting assignment. So ... going into the offseason, we had two guys (Polumbo, Smith) who appearred ready to be solid contributors with starting potential. Add in that,during the offseason, it appeared Brown was doing better.

So, where was the limitation on our offense last year? Let's take a look at WR's. They were pedestrian at best last year (when Gaffney is your leading WR, calling the unit pedestrian should be considered a complement). Hankerson looked good but had an injury concern and hadn't shown himself to be a consistent threat. Moss underperformed and, as I understand, it was almost off the team. After Gaffney, the leading receivers are a TE (Davis, 58 - who is facing a one year suspension for his next positive test) and a rookie RB (Helu, 49 Rec.).

A reminder about our WR corps last year:
Gaffney: 69 Rec.
Moss: 46 Rec.
Stallworth: 22 rec.
Hankerson: 13
Austin: 12
Armstrong: 7
Banks: 6
Paul: 2

You talk about limiting an offense -- our WR corp limited the offense. Rex or no Rex. None of the WR's on the roster demonstrated that they were YAC guys, much less game breakers. It was a bunch of chain movers at best. What's the point of taking a 5 and 7 step drops when your top two WR's average 13.9/catch (Gaffney, 41st in the NFL last year) and 12.7/catch (Moss, 67th in the NFL)? Our highest yards/catch guy last year? Mike Sellers (15.0/catch). If that is not a brutal idictment of the WR's, I am out.

Our QB situation - well, we know where that stood.

In comparison to those two positions, and playing our reserves, our line performed competently even with a statue like Rex back there.

The FO made some value judgments, someone earlier stated that Bruce thought next year's tackle quality will be much higher. Also, as SS intimated, it's not like on day one of free agency the choice was Garcon or Winston. No, it was Garcon or same old, same old. Winston came along after we addressed the WR position. Again, SS indicated they went after tackles but were priced out of the market between the cap penalty and the decision to prioritize the much more glaring need at WR.

As to Cousins, LeRibeus, over a RT in the 3rd or 4th - as Matty said, drafting for need gets you in trouble. I liked the Cousins pick, it was the right thing given our need to develop a back up at the game's most important position. If the step down in talent from starter to back-up is a concern at RT, a similar step down at QB is the end of a season (see Chicago last year). Grossman is not and never will be the long term answer at number two, QB's take time to develop. Again, based on their in-game performance, we had 2 and, hopefully, 3 guys (Brown being the third) who, based on their in-game performance, could competently cover the RT position. In that case, you trust your grades and go with the BPA.

The line is a concern. Should the FO made it a higher priority in the offseason? Maybe, but, given the other glaring needs that were bigger limitations on the offense, they certainly weren't idiots for not making it the top priority after RGIII. It was a reasonable decision based on the prior season's performance at the WR, QB and OL positions.

Quite frankly ... I am much, much more concerned with the defensive secondary than I am with the RT position.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yes. In camp, they appeared to have struggled. Heading into the offseason, however, it appeared that they were more than capable of handling a starting assignment. So ... going into the offseason, we had two guys (Polumbo, Smith) who appearred ready to be solid contributors with starting potential. Add in that,during the offseason, it appeared Brown was doing better.

So, where was the limitation on our offense last year? Let's take a look at WR's. They were pedestrian at best last year (when Gaffney is your leading WR, calling the unit pedestrian should be considered a complement). Hankerson looked good but had an injury concern and hadn't shown himself to be a consistent threat. Moss underperformed and, as I understand, it was almost off the team. After Gaffney, the leading receivers are a TE (Davis, 58 - who is facing a one year suspension for his next positive test) and a rookie RB (Helu, 49 Rec.).

A reminder about our WR corps last year:
Gaffney: 69 Rec.
Moss: 46 Rec.
Stallworth: 22 rec.
Hankerson: 13
Austin: 12
Armstrong: 7
Banks: 6
Paul: 2

You talk about limiting an offense -- our WR corp limited the offense. Rex or no Rex. None of the WR's on the roster demonstrated that they were YAC guys, much less game breakers. It was a bunch of chain movers at best. What's the point of taking a 5 and 7 step drops when your top two WR's average 13.9/catch (Gaffney, 41st in the NFL last year) and 12.7/catch (Moss, 67th in the NFL)? Our highest yards/catch guy last year? Mike Sellers (15.0/catch). If that is not a brutal idictment of the WR's, I am out.

Our QB situation - well, we know where that stood.

In comparison to those two positions, and playing our reserves, our line performed competently even with a statue like Rex back there.

The FO made some value judgments, someone earlier stated that Bruce thought next year's tackle quality will be much higher. Also, as SS intimated, it's not like on day one of free agency the choice was Garcon or Winston. No, it was Garcon or same old, same old. Winston came along after we addressed the WR position. Again, SS indicated they went after tackles but were priced out of the market between the cap penalty and the decision to prioritize the much more glaring need at WR.

As to Cousins, LeRibeus, over a RT in the 3rd or 4th - as Matty said, drafting for need gets you in trouble. I liked the Cousins pick, it was the right thing given our need to develop a back up at the game's most important position. If the step down in talent from starter to back-up is a concern at RT, a similar step down at QB is the end of a season (see Chicago last year). Grossman is not and never will be the long term answer at number two, QB's take time to develop. Again, based on their in-game performance, we had 2 and, hopefully, 3 guys (Brown being the third) who, based on their in-game performance, could competently cover the RT position. In that case, you trust your grades and go with the BPA.

The line is a concern. Should the FO made it a higher priority in the offseason? Maybe, but, given the other glaring needs that were bigger limitations on the offense, they certainly weren't idiots for not making it the top priority after RGIII. It was a reasonable decision based on the prior season's performance at the WR, QB and OL positions.

Quite frankly ... I am much, much more concerned with the defensive secondary than I am with the RT position.

Hey that's my line!

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yes. In camp, they appeared to have struggled. Heading into the offseason, however, it appeared that they were more than capable of handling a starting assignment. So ... going into the offseason, we had two guys (Polumbo, Smith) who appearred ready to be solid contributors with starting potential. Add in that,during the offseason, it appeared Brown was doing better.

So, where was the limitation on our offense last year? Let's take a look at WR's. They were pedestrian at best last year (when Gaffney is your leading WR, calling the unit pedestrian should be considered a complement). Hankerson looked good but had an injury concern and hadn't shown himself to be a consistent threat. Moss underperformed and, as I understand, it was almost off the team. After Gaffney, the leading receivers are a TE (Davis, 58 - who is facing a one year suspension for his next positive test) and a rookie RB (Helu, 49 Rec.).

A reminder about our WR corps last year:
Gaffney: 69 Rec.
Moss: 46 Rec.
Stallworth: 22 rec.
Hankerson: 13
Austin: 12
Armstrong: 7
Banks: 6
Paul: 2

You talk about limiting an offense -- our WR corp limited the offense. Rex or no Rex. None of the WR's on the roster demonstrated that they were YAC guys, much less game breakers. It was a bunch of chain movers at best. What's the point of taking a 5 and 7 step drops when your top two WR's average 13.9/catch (Gaffney, 41st in the NFL last year) and 12.7/catch (Moss, 67th in the NFL)? Our highest yards/catch guy last year? Mike Sellers (15.0/catch). If that is not a brutal idictment of the WR's, I am out.

Our QB situation - well, we know where that stood.

In comparison to those two positions, and playing our reserves, our line performed competently even with a statue like Rex back there.

The FO made some value judgments, someone earlier stated that Bruce thought next year's tackle quality will be much higher. Also, as SS intimated, it's not like on day one of free agency the choice was Garcon or Winston. No, it was Garcon or same old, same old. Winston came along after we addressed the WR position. Again, SS indicated they went after tackles but were priced out of the market between the cap penalty and the decision to prioritize the much more glaring need at WR.

As to Cousins, LeRibeus, over a RT in the 3rd or 4th - as Matty said, drafting for need gets you in trouble. I liked the Cousins pick, it was the right thing given our need to develop a back up at the game's most important position. If the step down in talent from starter to back-up is a concern at RT, a similar step down at QB is the end of a season (see Chicago last year). Grossman is not and never will be the long term answer at number two, QB's take time to develop. Again, based on their in-game performance, we had 2 and, hopefully, 3 guys (Brown being the third) who, based on their in-game performance, could competently cover the RT position. In that case, you trust your grades and go with the BPA.

The line is a concern. Should the FO made it a higher priority in the offseason? Maybe, but, given the other glaring needs that were bigger limitations on the offense, they certainly weren't idiots for not making it the top priority after RGIII. It was a reasonable decision based on the prior season's performance at the WR, QB and OL positions.

Quite frankly ... I am much, much more concerned with the defensive secondary than I am with the RT position.

Joe, you are as eloquent and thoughtful here as always. I agree with almost everything you said.

IMHO I have less confidence in Cousins than you. I like the idea of two young QB's but personally I have never thought that Cousins was our second guy. I see Cousins developing into Wrecks Jr at best.

If we had taken Bobby Massie instead of Cousins we would have more OT depth right now. And I argue now, as I did at draft time, that Massie is just a better player. To me Massie matched BPA as well as need so that's who we should have taken IMO.

That said, Massie would not be ready to start now, so he would not be a resolution to our current conundrum at RT.

Finally, I agree that our secondary is a huge concern but this thread is about the OL so that's why I belabor these points here.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Lotus

That said, Massie would not be ready to start now, so he would not be a resolution to our current conundrum at RT.

But, keep in mind we are talking about matching and improving upon Jammal Brown's level of play.
Given that he hasn't been good, given that both Willie Smith and Tyler Polombus per PFF graded out ahead of Brown.
And given that a 3rd/4th round OT is arguably more talented then Willie Smith then its not out of the realm that a 3rd/4th round OT could match if not surpass Brown's level of play.

Unless Cousins wins the back-up job form Wrecks, which is unlikely, he won't even be in a position to play this year.
If Cousins does win the back-up job he still might not play.
And either way as much as I like to don the Burgundy and Gold glasses were not a Super Bowl contending team.
And imo the purpose of a competent back-up is to maintain the Super Bowl aspirations of a contending team.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

You talk about limiting an offense -- our WR corp limited the offense. Rex or no Rex. None of the WR's on the roster demonstrated that they were YAC guys, much less game breakers. It was a bunch of chain movers at best. What's the point of taking a 5 and 7 step drops when your top two WR's average 13.9/catch (Gaffney, 41st in the NFL last year) and 12.7/catch (Moss, 67th in the NFL)? Our highest yards/catch guy last year? Mike Sellers (15.0/catch). If that is not a brutal idictment of the WR's, I am out.

If you're making an argument about improving the receiving options no one would disagree with you.
But, I think the more applicable question is which position RT or WR played at higher level/lower level?

In comparison to those two positions, and playing our reserves, our line performed competently even with a statue like Rex back there.

There is a difference between assessment of a unit like the OL vs an assessment of the individual players.

...but were priced out of the market between the cap penalty and the decision to prioritize the much more glaring need at WR.

This is the crux of the decision.
There seems to be the implication that there hands were tied.
When the reality is they made a choice.

I liked the Cousins pick, it was the right thing given our need to develop a back up at the game's most important position.

I like Cousins as a prospect. But its a whole other discussion whether there was a need to develop a back-up from this draft. Cousins pick strikes me more as 'amassing talent rather then building a team'. (Bellichick IIRC)

Again, based on their in-game performance, we had 2 and, hopefully, 3 guys (Brown being the third) who, based on their in-game performance, could competently cover the RT position.

We had 3 young players that showed they could come into a game and not vomit on themself.
They played well, given the situation they were thrust into.
But, that doesn't make them starting caliber they are still unknown quantities as long term starters.
They proved themselves to be solid depth anything beyond that is a hope.
Much like Jammal Brown playing better and staying healthy is a hope.

Quite frankly ... I am much, much more concerned with the defensive secondary than I am with the RT position.

The safeties and nickelback are question marks heading into the season.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 30gut

If you're making an argument about improving the receiving options no one would disagree with you.
But, I think the more applicable question is which position RT or WR played at higher level/lower level?.

I absolutely agree. I believe that the real limiting factor to this offense was not the O-Line play but the play of the receivers.

Originally Posted by 30gut

There is a difference between assessment of a unit like the OL vs an assessment of the individual players.

Again, I agree. We appear to disagree as to the assessment of each unit. As a unit, I think the O-Line performed better and was less of a limitation on the offense than the WR corp. Further, IMHO, the addition of a better indidvidual RT would not enhance the performance of the line as much as the addition of a game-breaking WR would enhance the receiver corp. The difference an individual can make within each unit is, in part, due to the nature the positions. An average RT's weaknesses can be covered up/limited as part of the entire line's play in ways that an individual receiver can't.

Originally Posted by 30gut

This is the crux of the decision.
There seems to be the implication that there hands were tied.
When the reality is they made a choice.

I agree it was a choice. I think it was the right choice. You & I appear to disagree. I don't remember if it was you, Goat or Chico talking about the limiting factors on offense, but it seems clear to me that the WR's were a significantly bigger limitation to this offense then O-Line was or, specifically, the RT was. Because of that, rather than prioritize a RT, the FO made the more reasonable choice of trying to obtain a WR who could be a game breaker.

Originally Posted by 30gut

I like Cousins as a prospect. But its a whole other discussion whether there was a need to develop a back-up from this draft. Cousins pick strikes me more as 'amassing talent rather then building a team'. (Bellichick IIRC)].

Except that people keep saying, as part of this discussion, the 3rd or 4th round pick should have been a tackle and that Cousins was a luxury pick. Again, I disagree. The general consensus is that drafting for need over BPA gets you into trouble. It would be a different discussion if there was someone on the board at RT that they thought could start this year (maybe next) - but I don't think that's the case. By my count, 10 tackles had come been selected before we took LeRib. Either 12 or 13 had been selected before Cousins. IMHO, that player would not be part of our discussion here. Zebrie Sanders and Massie may prove me wrong but, then, hindsight is 20/20.
The faster Cousins develops, the faster our drop-off at QB becomes less catastrophic. The faster a RT chosen instead would have developed, the faster our line play becomes slightly better.

Originally Posted by 30gut

We had 3 young players that showed they could come into a game and not vomit on themself.
They played well, given the situation they were thrust into.
But, that doesn't make them starting caliber they are still unknown quantities as long term starters.
They proved themselves to be solid depth anything beyond that is a hope.Much like Jammal Brown playing better and staying healthy is a hope.

Well, yes, of course it was a hope. I believe it was a reasonable hope given their performance - as young players with upside and, now, starting experience - that they would be more likely to step up to be average or better at the RT position than Hankerson, Moss, Banks or Austin would turn into a game breaking WR. Given the multiple off-season needs, you have to make some choices. Again, I thought the FO choice, given the in-game performances last year, was perfectly reasonable.

Originally Posted by 30gut

The safeties and nickelback are question marks heading into the season.

Question marks is putting it kindly. Our front seven better get to the QB quick.