Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line

Fair enough. But I do think that Thomas Jones is a legit back. He had several bad years in Arizona (which, prior to Grimm's arrival, didn't have a running game), but he was also a bona fide stud in Chicago. He had over 2,500 rushing yards and about 2,800 total yards in 2 seasons. Not to mention the fact that for much of that time he was playing in an offense that everyone knew ran, ran, and ran the ball.

Sure, didn't mean to imply that he sucked, just that he's at the end of his career (though he doesn't have a lot of miles on his tires -- his average carries per game is well below 20, and he's only broken 300 carries in a season once). That said, the guy is 29, and will never be in the same class as a Shaun Alexander or Larry Johnson. Or even a Clinton Portis on an off-year quite honestly.

I'd say he's an above average, productive NFL RB, but by no means a feature/franchise back or a stud.

Maybe it's just the overall direction the offense has been headed in. First there's an aggressive play here and there on the first drive. No three and out but an overthrown ball or dropped pass which leads to punt. The next drive is run, run pass and three and out. The defense creates a turnover and the offense scores a TD from the redzone. However after halftime, the game plan becomes defense first offense second. The playbook closes and the running game is stopped. If a turnover occurs, we lose the game because not enough points were generated by the offense. In a nutshell, to beat this team, a defense needs to put pressure on Campbell and force a turnover which New England did. 17 points alone was scored from turnovers. Mangini is the pupil of Belicheck and he will certainly send some pressure to Campbell. The question I have is where is the two step drop pass, or the draw play or maybe the shuffle pass? There is no creativity and agggression involved in this offense and the players look dispondent and out of sinc with one another.

I'll state the obvious - a good offense starts with a good offensive line. There are no exceptions to that rule that I can think of. A promising redskins offense has not been good mainly because of injuries to the offensive linemen. Without these injuries, the team would have a much different outlook.I totally agree that a good line almost always equates to good offensive play. Our starting line on paper looked solid, and it's just extremely bad luck that any team would lose one side of their O-Line by week two. The backups we have are decent fill-ins for a game or two. The FO must add higher quality depth during the offseason, especially since most of our starting O-linemen are around 30 or older.

One other thing that compounds your stats, dgack, is how many backs/TEs we keep in to block. I bet we run less 3WR and far less 4WR than most teams. That lowers our sack numbers but does NOT point to a good O-line--quite the opposite in fact. Given Gibbs philosophy of max protect, it's hard to read from pass-pro to anything about the running game.

Bottom line: our best run blockers were Thomas and Jansen--in 2005 we ran it there most. We lost BOTH of them in 2 weeks. Now we can't run. I spy a causal relationship here, but maybe it's just coincidence. Not to mention that Dock was a better power-run blocker than Kendal.

Oh, and GREAT THREAD, Dgack--very high-level discussion here. Refreshing after all the shrill nonsense of late.

Thanks, JW. Just trying to advance the conversation a little ;)

I've wondered the same thing, dgack. I tend to think that we still would have struggled on offense even if Jon Jansen and Randy Thomas were in the lineup and everyone else was perfectly healthy. Though that's just a feeling and not based on statistical facts. But Campbell is still learning, Santana Moss is in a funk, Brandon Lloyd has been an outrageous disappointment, and Randle El can't do everything himself. That part wouldn't change with any combination of healthy O-linemen.

I do think there's something to the playcalling, and adjusting your offensive scheme to the players we have. That's something we haven't done, and it's a legitimate fault of coaching.

The offensive line is what it is, and it's not getting any better. The guys we have now have to step up and above all open up some running lanes. They aren't, and it's killing this offense.

I sure wish we got the chance to see where this offense would be if we hadn't lost Jansen and Thomas. Thomas especially is so valuable in the running game on pulls.

When asked in his Monday presser about adjusting the run game, Gibbs was strangely forthright about having some ideas about changes--check that moment out on skins.com. Usually he's all noncommittal and "we just need to be smarter, etc." Here he said he had some ideas for changes, though, needless to say, he wouldn't elaborate.

I do think we can better maximize what this line can do. We better do that fast. But I still say (as per the other thread on this) that Wade has to go. The Jets are the team to try some new stuff on, especially with Vilma done.

When asked in his Monday presser about adjusting the run game, Gibbs was strangely forthright about having some ideas about changes--check that moment out on skins.com. Usually he's all noncommittal and "we just need to be smarter, etc." Here he said he had some ideas for changes, though, needless to say, he wouldn't elaborate.

I do think we can better maximize what this line can do. We better do that fast. But I still say (as per the other thread on this) that Wade has to go. The Jets are the team to try some new stuff on, especially with Vilma done.


I think he also said that personell changes would probably NOT happen. I, for one, would like to see more of Betts. Especially on draw plays. Clinton sort of skip-to-my-lous on those whereas Betts just takes off. Clinton generally looks hesitant to me.