Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line

On his radio show to today (archived on skins.com) Gibbs hinted at more Betts, in response to a caller's question. We'll see!

Also, Gibbs made a point that gave me some heart (and I know all the negative folk out there will spin this--whatever): Near the end of the game at the Pats, the coaches went to their starters and asked them if they'd like to come out--after all , the game was long since lost. NONE of them came out. Not one. He mentioned Samuels saying: no, I'm going to finish it, rather than slink off with my tail between my legs. And then they scored that "meaningless" late TD. Maybe I'm grasping at straws, but hopefully it will build from here.

i say why dont we run the 2 minute offense the entire game...it seems to me we get a lot more productivity that way...our offensive line is beat up badly...walking wounded ,mostly and it takes time for injuries to heal of which we have none...

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 agree with your points here....alot, particularly with adjusting your offense to what you have that works. I sit and watch every week and wonder if we even have Moss/ARE running down the field at all on pass plays, as we usually only throw 1 or 2 balls over 20 yards....especially as of late. I know I'm still just blowing off some steam, but all these excuses about the injuries to the oline vs. portis doesn't have IT anymore are just driving me nuts. Good teams and good coaches FIND ways to win, we are finding ways to lose...and it kills me to mention Gibbs and not good coaching in the same sentence. I think we all basically agree that we have some really good and some great players here, we are just not using them as effectively as we could.

It would be ridiculous for you guys to try to say that the o-line isn't a good part of it. It's not exactly the o-line's fault Jason fumbled plenty of times on Sunday but they are responsible for protecting him and he get hit from his blindside more times than he should have. O-line issues make it tough for any quarterback to play yet alone one with a little under a year of experience.

good post but i cant be swayed into thinking its anything but our line. at best, its a combination of many things, but mostly the line. we're hurting bad on the line.

game played in the trenches, blah, blah.

If I'm putting together a football team tomorrow, the first unit I start with is the offensive line. Everything that's done on offense starts with the line. At full strength our line is better than average, but with all the injuries this year it's extremely difficult to acomplish the things you want to do as an offense. Our backup linemen have not been able to perform at a level high enough that the entire offense does not struggle.

We hear the phrase often "everyone has to step up" well, that sounds good, but the reality is "you can't get blood out of a turnip", either you can do the job or you can't. With the type offense we run, the O-line is vital because it's predicated on the running game. With out line in disarray, the running game suffers, when the running game suffers, so will the passing game because much of what we do in the passing game comes off play action. When teams know you can't run the ball, play action becomes useless, and the passing game stagnant.

I'm convinced, the only way our offense will meet with any measure of success, we have to find a way to be more successful running the ball, less max protection, and more three wide reciever sets. When you have to give O-linemen help in pass protection, it limits your options otherwise, all of which illustrates why stability, and execution is so vital to the success of an offensive unit.

It's the O-Line and bad playcalling ... Fire Saunders!

We hear the phrase often "everyone has to step up" well, that sounds good, but the reality is "you can't get blood out of a turnip", either you can do the job or you can't. With the type offense we run, the O-line is vital because it's predicated on the running game. With out line in disarray, the running game suffers, when the running game suffers, so will the passing game because much of what we do in the passing game comes off play action. When teams know you can't run the ball, play action becomes useless, and the passing game stagnant.

To this I'd say scrap the run-first mentality, and let your offense evolve into a pass-first scheme interspersed with running plays. I'm not suggesting a return to the Fun N' Gun or Run-and-shoot or anything. But whatever we're trying to do now certainly isn't working.

Looks to me like we're overloaded with wideouts anyway.

To this I'd say scrap the run-first mentality, and let your offense evolve into a pass-first scheme interspersed with running plays. I'm not suggesting a return to the Fun N' Gun or Run-and-shoot or anything. But whatever we're trying to do now certainly isn't working.

Looks to me like we're overloaded with wideouts anyway.


I'm here in agreement with your approach, but as we all know Gibbs does not share in our philosophy. He has a way of doing things that will forever reflect what made him successful. Gibbs won three SB's with the run oriented offense and it's going to be difficult for him to adopt any other avenue in an atempt to duplicate that success. I will never be one to say the way he desires to met his goals cannot be accomplished, but so far, with this team (the last five games of the 05 season being the exception) he has not been able to make it happen.

Ok gentlemen, I have been reading your posts for 6 years and now I have actually joined so I can reply to this. I realize this is probably old hash but I have to say it.

-Was it Mark Rypien or the O-line that got us the Superbowl in 91.

When you get handed a football and someone is already standing in your back yard it makes it hard to see a running lane much less go through any of your reads. The front line is our problem and Joe knows that, that is why we are not seeing any TD's to our recievers. He is keeping it short and sweet and to the point. You cannot give a young QB 2 seconds to get rid of the ball he needs a Mark Rypien Average of 4-5 seconds to get rid of it. With that being said, Tom Brady could have stood in our back field and not had any production either.

Thank you for all of the entertainment and intelligent insight over the years.