Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
 

Well, Chester's setback will help rookies like LeRibeus or Gettis to get some good experience.

Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
 

[url=http://www.realredskins.com/rich-tandlers-real-redsk/2012/08/can-the-offense-survive-with-polumbus.html#tp]Can the offense survive with Polumbus? - Rich Tandler's Real Redskins[/url]

good read, valid points

Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
 

[quote=Chico23231;929052][url=http://www.realredskins.com/rich-tandlers-real-redsk/2012/08/can-the-offense-survive-with-polumbus.html#tp]Can the offense survive with Polumbus? - Rich Tandler's Real Redskins[/url]

good read, valid points[/quote]

I just read the same thing and was about to post it.. What's always funny is the same people who rip Jammal Brown are the ones most concerned that he's out. From the metrics, Polumbus is an adequate replacement and in the games where he struggled, Brown would probably have the same struggles based on who he was facing.

Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
 

The same analysis is due for Hurt and Smith.

Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
 

[quote=Chico23231;929052][URL="http://www.realredskins.com/rich-tandlers-real-redsk/2012/08/can-the-offense-survive-with-polumbus.html#tp"]Can the offense survive with Polumbus? - Rich Tandler's Real Redskins[/URL]

good read, valid points[/quote]

Definitely good read. People seem to forget that JB hasn't really been all that great when in the starting lineup to begin with. Are we really going to miss him?

Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
 

[quote=Mattyk;929099]Definitely good read. People seem to forget that JB hasn't really been all that great when in the starting lineup to begin with. [B] Are we really going to miss him?[/B][/quote]

No


I'll admit years ago when we made that trade I was like "Wow we have two great bookend tackles." Then when I heard that we were moving JB to RT I thought it was ridiculous moving a RT to LT and a LT to RT (Trent Williams in College; JB in college and new orleans). So I was like whatever this is still good we have two very solid tackles, one of which has been to 2 probowls. The whole time I heard he had a hip injury I figured that it would just go away and be less worse than having a torn ACL. Boy have I been wrong and really underestimated that injury. At first I thought we clearly got the better of New Orleans in that trade; looking back, man we really got shat on. But who could blame us for trading a couple of mid rounders for a two time probowl LT. Next year RT MUST be the top priority of both FA and the draft. Jammal is done. Simple as that. No way he comes back and ever finishes even a half season again.

Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
 

I think we'll be okay up front. Not stellar, but good enough to keep defenders from breathing down RG's neck on every play.

Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
 

With our running game coming along, RG3 elusive nature, and hopefully the defense keeping us on relatively short field, things could still work out.

Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
 

I guess what I have been seeing concerning Brown's absence is not so much: "Boy, are we going to miss him!". Instead it seems to me to be more: "They knew Brown wasn't the solution two years ago and they should have done something about it then. They didn't and now we're stuck with Polumbus/Smith which is an unnecessary risk."

Too me, the article simply reinforces my belief that the offense - and more importantly, RGIII - will, in fact, survive with Polumbus at RT. He will need help at times, but he simply will not cause the offense to stall in the way that the lack of a true deep threat at WR has.

Does Polumbus make us a "better" offense? No. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Does he makes a bad offense? Again, No.

Also, from what I have been reading in other articles - and maybe I am misinterperting it - the lineman's struggles have been highlighted in the one v. one drills. While important, those drills really aren't reflective of "Line Play". Yes, sometimes you have to man up and everyone needs to blow their guy off the line, but most [I]effective[/I] line play is about the line working together. As I understand it, this is particular true in the ZB system.

Again, let's wait and see what they look like against Buffalo. Even in playing vanilla offense & defense, we need to see that the line can be effective together.

Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
 

Polumbus may be better then Jammal Brown.
But moving Polumbus to starter weakens the depth.
And its my hope that endstate for RT isn't to just 'get by'.

Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
 

I guess I think, for this year, it is "just get by" b/c we had more pressing needs in other areas [[I]EDIT - in the opinion of the FO[/I]].

Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;929110]I guess what I have been seeing concerning Brown's absence is not so much: "Boy, are we going to miss him!". Instead it seems to me to be more: "They knew Brown wasn't the solution two years ago and they should have done something about it then. They didn't and now we're stuck with Polumbus/Smith which is an unnecessary risk."

Too me, the article simply reinforces my belief that the offense - and more importantly, RGIII - will, in fact, survive with Polumbus at RT. He will need help at times, but he simply will not cause the offense to stall in the way that the lack of a true deep threat at WR has.

Does Polumbus make us a "better" offense? No. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Does he makes a bad offense? Again, No.

Also, from what I have been reading in other articles - and maybe I am misinterperting it - the lineman's struggles have been highlighted in the one v. one drills. While important, those drills really aren't reflective of "Line Play". Yes, sometimes you have to man up and everyone needs to blow their guy off the line, but most [I]effective[/I] line play is about the line working together. As I understand it, this is particular true in the ZB system.

Again, let's wait and see what they look like against Buffalo. Even in playing vanilla offense & defense, we need to see that the line can be effective together.[/quote]

I agree, it's more important that the line play together as a unit vs what guys do in individual drills.

As for the JB situation, I'm sure the cap penalty hurt our plans. And really the only great fit would have been Winston, and he signed without even coming in for a visit.

Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
 

If we didn't get nailed with the bogus $18mil cap penalty, Winston would be here.

Once that stuck, likely signings like Vincent Jackson and Winston were not possible. They have have been, but we had to be smarter with our signings and overall, we were. Garcon+Morgan are a nice consolation to Jackson. We also had the secondary to address and we did what we could with the money we had left.

Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
 

[quote=CrustyRedskin;929023]I it makes anyone feel better the Cowpukes are having some severe problems of there own with the interior line.[/quote]

:food-smil

Yessir!

Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.
 

[quote=12thMan;929109]With our running game coming along, RG3 elusive nature, and hopefully the defense keeping us on relatively short field, things could still work out.[/quote]

I hope the running game is coming along - seems like they might be the second most injury prone unit on the team..........RG-3 rookie or not is going to make such a difference. I just keep saying to myself that Rex won 5 games and we were within inches from winning about 6 or 7 more. I think RG-3 is those inches we need, and apparently I think that I am Al Pacino giving a speech in Any Given Sunday...........