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

[quote=JoeRedskin;930050]It's preseason, so I take it all with a grain of salt.

BUT ... seems to me, from what I saw last night, the FO's decision to prioritize Garcon over a RT looked pretty rock solid.[/quote]

I'm sure other teams wanted Garçon. When they didn't get him, they bad-mouthed his contract.

[QUOTE=RGIII;930215]I'm sure other teams wanted Garçon. When they didn't get him, they bad-mouthed his contract.[/QUOTE]

Some here were also questioning/criticizing the FO's pursuit of Garcon and doubting his ability to be a number 1 WR.

I doubt Gafney, for example, makes those plays even in preseason.

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

Garcon really shined in his YAC on the touchdown play...nice moves
LOVED the "drop the shoulder" attitude on the defender on the pass over the middle.....
Can't wait to see more!

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;930050]BUT ... seems to me, from what I saw last night, the FO's decision to prioritize Garcon over a RT looked pretty rock solid.[/quote]Time will tell, imo its far to early to jump to any conclusions.
Garcon didn't do anything special last night.
That is not meant as a slight but as an objective observation.
On the other hand isolating the RT: Polumbus was often pushed back and as whole the 1st unit run blocking was poor.
The pass protection was good because it was well schemed by situation.
Griffin had well defined reads, got the ball out quick the Bills didn't blitz and were not in pin the ears back pass rush mode.
IIRC all his throws were out under 2.8-2.8 seconds.
I think an objective look tells us we shouldn't/can't glean anything conclusive from 1 preseason game.

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

[quote=30gut;930242]Time will tell, imo its far to early to jump to any conclusions.
Garcon didn't do anything special last night.
That is not meant as a slight but as an objective observation.
On the other hand isolating the RT: Polumbus was often pushed back and as whole the 1st unit run blocking was poor.
The pass protection was good because it was well schemed by situation.
Griffin had well defined reads, got the ball out quick the Bills didn't blitz and were not in pin the ears back pass rush mode.
IIRC all his throws were out under 2.8-2.8 seconds.
I think an objective look tells us we shouldn't/can't glean anything conclusive from 1 preseason game.[/quote]

Yeah I have to agree with your observation.

Polumbus was going against Mario Williams though, so keep that in mind. As for Garcon yeah I mean he made a play on some very vanilla defense coverages. We'll really know how good he is on some time when we play new orleans. I still don't like Garcon doing that flip, yet alone in the preaseason...
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=MErNtJF_PxA&NR=1]AD's final run as a Sooner - YouTube[/url] he broke his collar bone on this play

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

Haven't had a chance to read all the posts but heard Compton played well and could be a starting RT in the waiting.

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

[quote=Sonny9TD;930246]Haven't had a chance to read all the posts but heard Compton played well and could be a starting RT in the waiting.[/quote]

could be a starting RT in the waiting..we'll lets hold off on that. But yeah in terms of him, a 6th round rookie, going against 2nd stringers on the bills at LT, he did very well. Since its preseason next week would be a good time to put him at starting RT to give it a try and see what happens.

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

Saw Compton get schooled a couple of times. Good developmental guy but he's got a long way to go.

I think Griffin and Trent Williams will both make this line look much better come regular season time.

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

Hopefully the the next opponent(s) will through some blitzes and stunts at them so we'll know how they'll fare against them.

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

[quote=30gut;930242]Time will tell, imo its far to early to jump to any conclusions.[/quote]
Yup. I agree. My limited point was that in the opening quarter of the opening preseason game, the FO's emphasis on WR, and, specifically, their targeting of Garcon received positive reinforcement. Time, as you say, may change that. However, the first news was good news.

[quote=30gut;930242]Garcon didn't do anything special last night.
That is not meant as a slight but as an objective observation.[/quote]
Again, see above. No, he did nothing eye popping - good or bad. He performed routine plays in the manner a true No. 1 WR should. Against vanilla D - he found the spots, made the catches and displayed some nice YAC ability. All things we lacked in our No. 1 WR spot last year.

[quote=30gut;930242]On the other hand isolating the RT: Polumbus was often pushed back and as whole the 1st unit run blocking was poor.
The pass protection was good because it was well schemed by situation.[/quote]

As someone said, Polumbus was going against MW. In limited play, in a preseason game against a vanilla D, he performed adequately against an elite D-end.

As to the scheme, I absolutely agree. I also think that scheme as to blocking covers a host evils. W/out WR's who can consistently make individual YAC contributions, however, your passing game is consistently limited to the the distance the QB can accurately throw the ball downfied.

[quote=30gut;930242]Griffin had well defined reads, got the ball out quick the Bills didn't blitz and were not in pin the ears back pass rush mode.
IIRC all his throws were out under 2.8-2.8 seconds.[/quote]
Yup. All true ... and, in a situation wherein the passing game should function well, with Griffin, Garcon and Polumbus, it did. That's a good thing and was not necessarily true of the 2nd and 3rd team offenses. Further, it has not been true of our [I]1st team offenses[/I] in past preseasons.
[quote=30gut;930242]I think an objective look tells us we shouldn't/can't glean anything conclusive from 1 preseason game.[/quote]

And, again, I agree as to the term conclusive. What we can say, and which you seem to be fighting tooth and nail not to say, is "They looked good". You may add as many disclaimer's to the bottom line as you wish, but the truth is that both the player's and the FO should get a[I] preliminary [/I]passing grade based on this 1st outing.

All I know is if the OL looked like total garbage, I don't think we would be saying eh, it's only 1 game.

Yes it was a limited look and we shouldn't take too much from it either way, but it was a solid start.

[QUOTE=Mattyk;930257]All I know is if the OL looked like total garbage, I don't think we would be saying eh, it's only 1 game.

Yes it was a limited look and we shouldn't take too much from it either way, but it was a solid start.[/QUOTE]

That's what I've been saying! No sacks on griff heck not even touched. Trent blocked well on pass pro no big time issues so far

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;930254]And, again, I agree as to the term conclusive. What we can say, and which you seem to be fighting tooth and nail not to say, is "They looked good".[/quote]Woah there, no need to be a mind reader or make false assumptions.
Lets be very clear this isn't a discussion about whether the OL looked good.
I responded directly to this statement that [I][B]you[/B][/I] made:[quote=your statement]the FO's decision to prioritize Garcon over a RT looked pretty rock solid.[/quote]

In fact if you said that some OL looked good I might have actually agree with you. (Gettis (who actually had a pancake), Compton).
But it takes a certain amount of dishonestly/homerism for your net take away about the OL and specifically the RT positions level of play was good enough to justify anything.
Espcially considering the 1st unit struggled with their run blocking assignment and Polumbus in particular had a number of push-backs and whiffs.

Level of opposition is not a justification for grading poor play on a curve.


You can't agree with this:
[quote]I think an objective look tells us we shouldn't/can't glean anything conclusive from 1 preseason game.[/quote]And say this at the same time:[quote=you] both the player's and the FO should get a[I] preliminary [/I]passing grade based on this 1st outing[/quote]Without coming across as hypocritical.

Its like saying: we can't take anything conclusive away from the 1st preseason game except that the FO decision to sign Garcon justifies them not addressing the RT.

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

[quote=Chico23231;929309]dude it was the mid ninties, of course I was. Natural Born is a visual masterpiece.[/quote]

NBK sure has a killer soundtrack, I'll give it that.

The movie is a bit of a hot mess though. Hot mess in a good way.