Re: 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.
[I][B]Prior[/B][/I] 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?

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

[quote=Mattyk;927870]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[/quote]

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

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;927869]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,[I]during the offseason[/I], 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 [I]and[/I] 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? [I]Mike Sellers[/I] (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 [I]the top priority [/I]after RGIII. It was a reasonable decision based on the prior season's performance at the WR, QB and OL positions.

[B]Quite frankly ... I am [I]much, much[/I] more concerned with the defensive secondary than I am with the RT position.[/B][/quote]

Hey that's my line!

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

[quote=SmootSmack;927876]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[/quote]

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

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

[quote=SmootSmack;927871]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[/quote]

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;927869]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,[I]during the offseason[/I], 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 [I]and[/I] 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? [I]Mike Sellers[/I] (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 [I]the top priority [/I]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 [I]much, much[/I] more concerned with the defensive secondary than I am with the RT position.[/quote]

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 [I]at best[/I].

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. :)

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

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

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;927869]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? [I]Mike Sellers[/I] (15.0/catch). If that is not a brutal idictment of the WR's, I am out.[/quote]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?

[quote]In comparison to those two positions, and playing our reserves, our line performed competently even with a statue like Rex back there.[/quote]There is a difference between assessment of a unit like the OL vs an assessment of the individual players.

[quote]...but were priced out of the market between the cap penalty and the decision to prioritize the much more glaring need at WR.[/quote]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 [I]choice[/I].

[quote]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.[/quote]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)

[quote]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.[/quote]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.


[quote]Quite frankly ... I am [I]much, much[/I] more concerned with the defensive secondary than I am with the RT position.[/quote]The safeties and nickelback are question marks heading into the season.

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

[quote=SmootSmack;927883]Why would Massie be a better choice than Cousins if he couldn't contribute now?[/quote]

Neither guy is going to contribute much right now, right? So to me the argument is a developmental one.

Down the road IMO (brilliant talent scout that I am :) ) I think Massie could develop into a very good starter at RT. AT worst he could provide quality depth. We could muddle through this year at RT but have Massie ready to start next year. In this scenario RT, in the long term, is solved.

Cousins to me was way too mistake-prone at MSU and I think he will continue to be mistake-prone as a pro. Others disagree but I personally (again with my seasoned brilliance) don't see Cousins ever developing into even a quality backup. This is why I say that the idea to have two young QB's is smart but IMO Cousins is not the second man.

Since Cousins is on our team I hope that he makes me eat huge helpings of crow but I am of little faith right now.

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

Keep in mind that the question marks along the OLs and DBs are about injuries, not the lack of depth (numbers).

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

[quote=Lotus;927882]That said, Massie would not be ready to start now, so he would not be a resolution to our current conundrum at RT.[/quote]But, keep in mind we are talking about matching and improving upon Jammal Brown's level of play.
Given that he hasn't been good, given that both Willie Smith and Tyler Polombus per PFF graded out ahead of Brown.
And given that a 3rd/4th round OT is arguably more talented then Willie Smith then its not out of the realm that a 3rd/4th round OT could match if not surpass Brown's level of play.

Unless Cousins wins the back-up job form Wrecks, which is unlikely, he won't even be in a position to play this year.
If Cousins does win the back-up job he still might not play.
And either way as much as I like to don the Burgundy and Gold glasses were not a Super Bowl contending team.
And imo the purpose of a competent back-up is to maintain the Super Bowl aspirations of a contending team.

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

[quote=Lotus;927888]Neither guy is going to contribute much right now, right? So to me the argument is a developmental one.

Down the road IMO (brilliant talent scout that I am :) ) I think Massie could develop into a very good starter at RT. AT worst he could provide quality depth. We could muddle through this year at RT but have Massie ready to start next year. In this scenario RT, in the long term, is solved.

Cousins to me was way too mistake-prone at MSU and I think he will continue to be mistake-prone as a pro. Others disagree but I personally (again with my seasoned brilliance) don't see Cousins ever developing into even a quality backup. This is why I say that the idea to have two young QB's is smart but IMO Cousins is not the second man.

Since Cousins is on our team I hope that he makes me eat huge helpings of crow but I am of little faith right now.[/quote]

Ok, got you. So you weren't against a QB per se. Just Cousins.

Could it be your judgment is clouded because you feel Cousins is an unnecessary roadblock on Crompton's path to greatness?

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

[quote=RGIII;927889]Keep in mind that the question marks along the OLs and DBs are about injuries, not the lack of depth (numbers).[/quote]And most important and impactful: quality of play.

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

[quote=30gut;927890]But, keep in mind we are talking about matching and improving upon Jammal Brown's level of play.
Given that he hasn't been good, given that both Willie Smith and Tyler Polombus per PFF graded out ahead of Brown.
[B]And given that a 3rd/4th round OT is arguably more talented then Willie Smith then its not out of the realm that a 3rd/4th round OT could match if not surpass Brown's level of play.[/B]

Unless Cousins wins the back-up job form Wrecks, which is unlikely, he won't even be in a position to play this year.
If Cousins does win the back-up job he still might not play.
And either way as much as I like to don the Burgundy and Gold glasses were not a Super Bowl contending team.
And imo the purpose of a competent back-up is to maintain the Super Bowl aspirations of a contending team.[/quote]

Fair enough. I won't argue with that. I was just trying to be measured and conservative in my judgements.

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

[quote=SmootSmack;927891]Ok, got you. So you weren't against a QB per se. Just Cousins.

Could it be your judgment is clouded because you feel Cousins is an unnecessary roadblock on Crompton's path to greatness?[/quote]

I think having a second young QB is a great idea.

And Crompton is that man! :) (Or Lindley, Harnisch, or Austin Davis IMO).

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

[quote=Lotus;927895]I think having a second young QB is a great idea.....And Crompton is that man! :) (Or Lindley, Harnisch, or Austin Davis IMO).
[/quote]I bet there are gonna be some good back-ups availbale in the fallout of the Browns, Seahawks and Dolphins training camps.

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

People are assuming that Jonathan Crompton is the odd man out behind Cousins and and Grossman. But if Crompton ends up having a good camp and a greater preseason than Cousins and Grossman, then the coaches are going to have to evaluate him fairly

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

[quote=SmootSmack;927871]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[/quote]

To add to this.


[B]LL ‏@LL_HTTR247

Brown will be out for a couple weeks but will not go on IR. Looks like 5-8. [/B]


Between 5 and 8 weeks. I'm like a few people up here, you really can't count on Brown's health lasting at all.

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

[quote=NC_Skins;927902]To add to this.


[B]LL ‏@LL_HTTR247

Brown will be out for a couple weeks but will not go on IR. Looks like 5-8. [/B]


Between 5 and 8 weeks. I'm like a few people up here, you really can't count on Brown's health lasting at all.[/quote]

We honestly should just cut ties with Brown now. I don't see him being anything other than a detriment to the stability of the O-line this year (and in the future).

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

Crompton has slightly less than zero chance...unless (heaven forbid) there is some disastrous injury

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

Brown could be back by the opener, really

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

Rookies going to be thrown right into the fire.

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

For the hypothetical crowd:
Long term would you rather have Massie and a late round rookie backup QB or Cousins and a 2013 2nd round RT draft pick?

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

[quote=Paintrain;927908]For the hypothetical crowd:
Long term would you rather have Massie and a late round rookie backup QB or Cousins and a 2013 2nd round RT draft pick?[/quote]

I like the Cousins move. I just wished that some of the moves we were attempting to make during the offseason would have panned out. Can't control everything though...

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

[quote=InsaneBoost;927907]Rookies going to be thrown right into the fire.[/quote]

Sink or swim.

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

Ross Tucker said several weeks ago, it is amazing how many teams have OL and secondary issues, and I agree with that. There seems to be a bit of lacking in the "named talent" of the OL pool. Add to that the fact that consistency among the line is a key ingredient to any successful line, and I think our guys who came on at the end of last year ought to be given every opportunity to show what they can do this year.

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

[quote=30gut;927885]If you're making an argument about improving the receiving options no one would disagree with you.
[B]But, I think the more applicable question is which position RT or WR played at higher level/lower level?[/B].[/quote]

I absolutely agree. I believe that the real limiting factor to this offense was not the O-Line play but the play of the receivers.

[quote=30gut;927885]There is a difference between assessment of a unit like the OL vs an assessment of the individual players.[/quote]

Again, I agree. We appear to disagree as to the assessment of each unit. As a unit, I think the O-Line performed better and was less of a limitation on the offense than the WR corp. Further, IMHO, the addition of a better indidvidual RT would not enhance the performance of the line as much as the addition of a game-breaking WR would enhance the receiver corp. The difference an individual can make within each unit is, in part, due to the nature the positions. An average RT's weaknesses can be covered up/limited as part of the entire line's play in ways that an individual receiver can't.

[quote=30gut;927885]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 [I]choice[/I].[/quote]

I agree it was a choice. I think it was the right choice. You & I appear to disagree. I don't remember if it was you, Goat or Chico talking about the limiting factors on offense, but it seems clear to me that the WR's were a significantly bigger limitation to this offense then O-Line was or, specifically, the RT was. Because of that, rather than prioritize a RT, the FO made the more reasonable choice of trying to obtain a WR who could be a game breaker.

[quote=30gut;927885]I like Cousins as a prospect. [B]But its a whole other discussion whether there was a need to develop a back-up from this draft. [/B]Cousins pick strikes me more as 'amassing talent rather then building a team'. (Bellichick IIRC)].[/quote]

Except that people keep saying, as part of [I]this[/I] discussion, the 3rd or 4th round pick should have been a tackle [I]and[/I] that Cousins was a luxury pick. Again, I disagree. The general consensus is that drafting for need over BPA gets you into trouble. It would be a different discussion if there was someone on the board at RT that they thought could start this year (maybe next) - but I don't think that's the case. By my count, 10 tackles had come been selected before we took LeRib. Either 12 or 13 had been selected before Cousins. IMHO, that player would not be part of our discussion here. Zebrie Sanders and Massie may prove me wrong but, then, hindsight is 20/20.
The faster Cousins develops, the faster our drop-off at QB becomes less catastrophic. The faster a RT chosen instead would have developed, the faster our line play becomes slightly better.

[quote=30gut;927885]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.
[B]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.[/B]Much like Jammal Brown playing better and staying healthy is a hope.[/quote]

Well, yes, of course it was a hope. I believe it was a reasonable hope given their performance - as young players with upside and, now, starting experience - that they would be more likely to step up to be average or better at the RT position than Hankerson, Moss, Banks or Austin would turn into a game breaking WR. Given the multiple off-season needs, you have to make some choices. Again, I thought the FO choice, given the in-game performances last year, was perfectly reasonable.

[quote=30gut;927885]The safeties and nickelback are question marks heading into the season.[/quote]

Question marks is putting it kindly. Our front seven better get to the QB quick.

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

I agree w/ cutting Brown now. This guy gets more gimpy each year and if anything he just breaks up whatever "consistency" we could have across the oline by starting one of the younger guys.

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

The one constant bit of encouragement I have about our oline issues is Mike's history of producing quality lines.

Also, giving Polumbus the "start" now could give him time to raise his game, if indeed he's struggling so far as reported. Push him hard and see what happens.

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

[quote=Paintrain;927908]For the hypothetical crowd:
Long term would you rather have Massie and a late round rookie backup QB or Cousins and a 2013 2nd round RT draft pick?[/quote]

I feel strongly both ways.

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

And Chris Russell saying Brown's telling him he's not well...so are the days of our lives

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

[quote=SmootSmack;927925]And Chris Russell saying Brown's telling him he's not well...so are the days of our lives[/quote]

Funny how a few months--hell even weeks--ago brown said he was feeling the best he had in a while and was doing Yoga. Now this...smh this guy has to go. I'm assuming he won't retire or would he to save us some money.

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

I think we can all definitively agree that Yoga is a piece of crap.

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

[quote=SmootSmack;927925]And Chris Russell saying Brown's telling him he's not well...so are the days of our lives[/quote]

I think its pretty obvious, its time to part ways. Seriously, this guy doesnt want to be here, his body hasnt been right since he got here. Is the writing on the wall anymore obvious???

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

Doesn't want to be here? Based on what

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

Okay ... I have no illusions about Brown's ability to start 16 games or play well in the games in which he does play. At the same time, given our demonstrable line concerns, why dump before we have to?

Give the young guys reps? Okay - he's a vet he doesn't need it. Keep him on the PUP until the regular season. Wouldn't he give us decent depth even if he's not starting? Not suggesting we keep him over others who step up in camp, but, for this year, we need bodies at RT. If we have a bunch of Joes at RT, keep the best Joes we got. If Brown is thought to be one of 'em great. If not, cut him.

Again, we haven't even had a full week of camp. Can we have a little patience guys??

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;927931]Okay ... I have no illusions about Brown's ability to start 16 games or play well in the games in which he does play. At the same time, given our demonstrable line concerns, why dump before we have to?

Give the young guys reps? Okay - he's a vet he doesn't need it. Keep him on the PUP until the regular season.[B] Wouldn't he give us decent depth even if he's not starting?[/B] Not suggesting we keep him over others who step up in camp, but, for this year, we need bodies at RT. If we have a bunch of Joes at RT, keep the best Joes we got. If Brown is thought to be one of 'em great. If not, cut him.

Again, we haven't even had a full week of camp. Can we have a little patience guys??[/quote]

How can he back anyone up when he can't even practice? He's had an entire off season to be healthy. Time to move on.

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

[quote=SmootSmack;927905]Brown could be back by the opener, really[/quote]

And he'll just re injure himself doing yoga. LOL. All kidding aside Brown's body is jut letting him down at this point of his career. He's like the Malcom Kelly of the o-line.