We've got big trouble on the OL.

[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.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.

Fair enough. I won't argue with that. I was just trying to be measured and conservative in my judgements.

[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.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.....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.

For my taste terms like 'limiting factor' are too subjective and unquantifiable.
However, you can also look at production metrics.
And as unit, due to the scheme, the OL was better then the sum of the individual parts especially in the running game.
However the unit still give up too many sacks and too many QB hits (near tops in the league in both areas).
However individually, Moss, Gaffney and the rest of the receiving corps played at a higher level then individual members of the OL but specifically RT according to PFF.

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.

Again, this speaks to your evaluation of the receivers vs the OL and your individual football theory/philosophy about the essential components of a passing offense.
(i think you're making a huge leap when you call Garcon a game-breaking WR)
For me first and foremost I want to create an environment for the optimal comfort of my rookie QB.
Imo there is no question that improved RT play and the resulting fewer sacks, fewer QB hits, improved rushing ability-->improved playaction ability, increased QB comfort/poise are all vital to QB play, especially rookie QBs. (who are more dependent upon pass protection for their success because they tend to hold the ball longer.)

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.

I agree, but our RT play thus far isn't even league average.
And our receiving corps was at least league average with potential for improvement.

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.

I can't speak for what other people are saying.

The general consensus is that drafting for need over BPA gets you into trouble.

Why would you assume that I'm advocating need over BPA?

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.

This is just an assumption or speculation that the FO didn't see any RT they thought could start this year/next year.
And even if that was there view point we won't know whether or not there evaluation was correct for a year or more.

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.

First, unless Cousin wins the back-up job he is a total non-factor this season where a RT could have impact and benefit this season.
Second, your scenario seems to project Cousins developing into a solid back-up QB (which is kinda difficult to assess for a QB that doesn't play) yet only projects the RT to make the OL 'slightly better.'
But, if both picks pan a RT vs a back-up QB I think its clear that a RT would have more benefit to Griffin the franchise QB and therefore has more benefit to the team.

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.

I know its cliche now but hope is not strategy nor a solid plan.
But even if the plan was to have hope imo it seems just as logical if not more logical to have 'hope' that the WRs play would improve: Moss doesn't break his hand, Armstrong having a QB that can contect deep like in 2010 where he was tops in 19.8 YPC, Hankerson bouncing back from injury etc..
vs 'hoping' that Jammal Brown not only stays healthy but plays better then he's played thus far.

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.

To each there own, its interesting to hear your reasoning.
Imo their decision to prioritize WR over RT was a mistake.
Every FO make thousands of choices and even championship teams make mistakes.
Hopefully RT won't prove to be an issue, especially in pass protection.

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

There were some FA S that I liked better then ones we got.
Everyone raves about Madieu, but I guess I'll believe when I see it.
Tanard Jackson history of subpar tackling scares the beejesus out of me.
But, I think Reed is underrated as insurance against Meriweather flaking out.
And I like our 2nd year guy Gomes but don't know if he's ready to handle the responsibility of being a FS.
I really like the kid Bernstiens physical skillset, but he's probably fighting to make the team.