Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dgack

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.

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.

Originally Posted by dgack

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.

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.

Originally Posted by dgack

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.

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.

Originally Posted by dgack

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.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

Originally Posted by dgack

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.

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.

Originally Posted by dgack

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

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.