We've got big trouble on the OL.

Every position on a team can be rated by the quality of players available at that position: all-pro, pro-bowl, average starter, barely average, passable, replacement level etc. (whichever term you want to use) x how many players are available at that position.
Prior to JB's injury the RT position was below average, playing below replacement level and often injured.

This is the truth of the RT situation now and during the offseason.

The next step is philosophy/judgement.
How important is RT play to the overall success/failure of an offense?
The answer to the above question guides ones assessment of priority (right/wrong) for the position.

Should we address and prioritize the RT position with a safer bet to play at a higher level then Jammal Brown or Tyler Polombus?
or
Should we go with what got and let the chips fall where they may?

Jason La Canfora ‏@JasonLaCanfora
Skins RT Jammal Brown's injury not serious. No surgery. Rest and rehab. No exact return date scheduled but not season threatening

Missed this post. That's not where I heard it from. But if multiple people are reporting it, then that must be a good sign

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!

Missed this post. That's not where I heard it from. But if multiple people are reporting it, then that must be a good sign

Any news on the injury to his other hip? Is it serious?

Well, I guess I was right on Thursday/Friday. Brown's injury is not serious. Should actually be back quite soon. So says the latest intel

Note to self: Radio source of mine who keeps feeding me false info...you're on my list

SS your intel is always appreciated. Good news I guess, but I really dont expect much from JB. Still need to look at roster cuts and coach up our depth with a sense of urgency.

The news may be good but I dont trust this guy.
How many weeks till hes a gimp all over again?

The team has few options since the talent OT talent pool was so thin and the $18M cap penalty hit. Would fans be happy for the team to trade for Otah? Of course not. They have to hold on to Jamaal for the duration of season. Maybe it's best for him to be the swing guy while Polumbus gets the workload now.

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. :)

Why would Massie be a better choice than Cousins if he couldn't contribute now?

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.