Maybe It's Not Just The O-Line

The "Portis vs Betts" thread got me thinking about whether the problem is really all down to our O-Line. Maybe CP isn't declining that badly, and maybe it's just a case of our line being so destroyed that, as several posters have posited, "even [LT | Payton | Sanders] couldn't run behind this line".

With that in mind I decided to check some stats and try to identify some other teams who have a bad O-line, and see what their run game numbers look like. The basic premise I used to select these other teams was to look for teams who have given up a lot of sacks. Admittedly, this allows for things like coverage sacks, and doesn't correlate 100% to run blocking, but I didn't want to use any run game averages in the calculation since that could be tainted by a talent issue at the RB position.

Here are the NFL leaders in team sacks allowed:

1 Detroit Lions (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=08) 35
2 Philadelphia Eagles (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=21) 27
3 San Francisco 49ers (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=25) 26
4 Atlanta Falcons (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=01) 25
5 St. Louis Rams (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=14) 25
6 Oakland Raiders (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=13) 22
7 Chicago Bears (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=03) 21
8 Kansas City Chiefs (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=12) 20
9 Minnesota Vikings (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=16) 20
10 New York Jets (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=20) 20
11 Jacksonville Jaguars (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=30) 20

REDSKINS: 12 sacks allowed

And now, those same teams yards per carry average, and % of rushing plays:

Detroit Lions (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=08) 4.2 - 34.7%
Philadelphia Eagles (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=21) 4.5 - 40.8%
San Francisco 49ers (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=25) 4.1 - 38.0%
Atlanta Falcons (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=01) 3.9 - 37.7%
St. Louis Rams (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=14) 3.5 - 37.1%
Oakland Raiders (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=13) 4.3 - 50.8%
Chicago Bears (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=03) 3.2 - 38.9%
Kansas City Chiefs (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=12) 3.3 - 41.0%
Minnesota Vikings (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=16) 5.2 - 49.2%
New York Jets (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=20) 3.5 - 43.7%
Jacksonville Jaguars (http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/teamstats.asp?team=30) 4.5 - 52.5%

REDSKINS: 3.5 - 49.1%

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

To me, it seems our line is best suited for the quick hitters, not the drawn out off tackle runs. They seem to struggle holding blocks. The quick hitters between the guards seem to work more for us. I would use more of those plays, to get the LBs cheating to the middle. then have CP bounce a few outside. Fact is, the OLINE is not that good, its not horrible, but not that good. I think we have to be able to use quick plays, 3 step drops, quick screens, slants, outs ect. Once teams feel we are getting rid of the ball quicker and start to respect those plays, they will stop stacking the line, put more people in coverage, stop so much run blitzing, and we should be able to run the ball with a little success. Al Saunders needs to be given a little freedom and get into a rhythm. O coordinators need to get a rhythm just like a running back, or a QB.

Offensive lines in Seattle, St. Louis, KC and NYJ are having an awful time opening running lanes for their backs. And, to no surprise, Shawn Alexander, Steven Jackson, Larry Johnson, and Thomas Jones are having a really hard time running the ball. Did all of those guys suddenly lose their talent or desire to win? No and the same is true of Portis.

If Portis had not been injured in 2006 making an all-out effort to tackle a guy, we wouldn't be talking about Portis having lost it. We would simply be saying that Portis, like Jackson, Alexander, Johnson, and Jones is a victim of circumstance. To be honest, it kind of makes me nauseous to trash a guy like Portis who goes all out on every play (and is worse for the wear for it).

I do appreciate the stats and thought that you have put into this thread dgack. Your posts have been among the most coherent and best-supported on this site in the past week or so. But, putting the stats aside, are you honestly seeing the O-line doing a good job opening lanes? If so, why is Betts rushing for under 3 yards per carry? I realize that Betts needs to find a rhythm, but less than 3 yards per carry (the worst of his career)?

Schneed, I wasn't making any "points" with comparisons to those teams, just seeing what fell out of the stats. The Buffalo comparison was an attempt to see what team is closest to us in terms of play selection and rushing effectiveness.

To me what these numbers mean are one of three things:

1 -- We are not calling plays that are suited to the strengths of the personnel we have (healthy)

2 -- Different personnel could be more effective running behind the line we're currently fielding (this one seems the most contentious issues)

3 -- We are simply so injury depleted that we can't run effectively.

It seems like many are firmly behind #3. I can accept that run blocking and pass blocking are not the same thing, but I question whether they are so night-and-day different that we are basically without hope until our line "heals" or we upgrade there.

SGG, I had much of the same thoughts when I looked at KC, St. Louis, and Seattle -- though Alexander has also been injured a lot and is on the downside of an extremely prolific career. LJ and Jackson are legitimate comparisons, but Jones is also a pretty tired journeyman back.

Again, I'm not trashing the effort the dude gives. Nor am I saying that the line is doing a great job making holes for dudes to hit. But I don't think that we can rely on the same "classic Redskins" gameplan that we employ with a healthy O-Line anymore. Why aren't we running more screens, for example? This discussion about CP's effectiveness is not all about him breaking down (though I think that's a legitimate concern). It's also about how he's being misused in this offense right now.

SGG, I had much of the same thoughts when I looked at KC, St. Louis, and Seattle -- though Alexander has also been injured a lot and is on the downside of an extremely prolific career. LJ and Jackson are legitimate comparisons, but Jones is also a pretty tired journeyman back.

Again, I'm not trashing the effort the dude gives. Nor am I saying that the line is doing a great job making holes for dudes to hit. But I don't think that we can rely on the same "classic Redskins" gameplan that we employ with a healthy O-Line anymore. Why aren't we running more screens, for example? This discussion about CP's effectiveness is not all about him breaking down (though I think that's a legitimate concern). It's also about how he's being misused in this offense right now.

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.

Offensive lines in Seattle, St. Louis, KC and NYJ are having an awful time opening running lanes for their backs. And, to no surprise, Shawn Alexander, Steven Jackson, Larry Johnson, and Thomas Jones are having a really hard time running the ball. Did all of those guys suddenly lose their talent or desire to win? No and the same is true of Portis.

If Portis had not been injured in 2006 making an all-out effort to tackle a guy, we wouldn't be talking about Portis having lost it. We would simply be saying that Portis, like Jackson, Alexander, Johnson, and Jones is a victim of circumstance. To be honest, it kind of makes me nauseous to trash a guy like Portis who goes all out on every play (and is worse for the wear for it).

I do appreciate the stats and thought that you have put into this thread dgack. Your posts have been among the most coherent and best-supported on this site in the past week or so. But, putting the stats aside, are you honestly seeing the O-line doing a good job opening lanes? If so, why is Betts rushing for under 3 yards per carry? I realize that Betts needs to find a rhythm, but less than 3 yards per carry (the worst of his career)?Aren't Alexander and Larry Johnson in the same boat as Portis (if not worse) in terms of abuse? I think that supports dgack's argument more than anything.

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that really successful or really awful running games aren't to the credit or fault of their respective offensive lines. But I'd like to take dgack's argument in a different direction for a second.

So much of what an offensive line does is executed within the first seven yards of the play. No lineman or TE goes downfield to block a safety. Therefore, once the back gets through the LB level, he's own his own out there.

Well, the 2006 Redskins have fewer than 5 runs over ten yards this year. No runs over 20 yards.

If you truncate long runs across the league, the Redskins run blocking actually comes out pretty average (ALY is my stat of reference (http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol.php)). Granted this ALY ranking is at a three year low for us (for obvious reasons).

However, our YPC ranks 30th in the league only ahead of Chicago and Houston. Portis' YPC is higher than the teams YPC, but he also has more than 2/3 of the teams' carries. He's not creating big plays even when he has blocking.

Here's the point: even with injuries, plenty of teams have worse offensive lines than us. Wade and Fabini have not been bad in the run game. Fabini has been a pleasant surprise overall. But Portis isn't reading the holes well and he's not creating any yards beyond what a typical run-of-the-mill back would be.

Now whether Betts can be better is an enitrely different discussion, but I will say this: if he's not capable of doing any better, we really shouldn't be wasting plays running the football.

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.

If Betts gets 40 more carries and still can't pull up around 3.5, then we have a bigger issue with the offensive line than we thought.

And we are already thinking its pretty bad.

If the absolutely most reasonably optimistic outcome of a running play is a 6 yard gain (which seems to be the case), why not throw almost every play?

Thanks, GTripp, for supporting some of my thoughts with a lot more thoroughly researched data points.