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

[quote=SmootSmack;927864]He's a rookie, for one thing. So struggles are expected. And he's learning both G and C

How exactly are you defining "complain"?

[B]Willie is fine health wise[/B][/quote]


Very good to hear. Ive heard he "did not practice" yesterday and i think today but wasnt too sure what that meant. Hopefully hell be back soon.


Anyone know how much Big Mike Williams is weighing these days?

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

Pretty sure Willie Smith was out there doing individual drills yesterday.

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

[quote=mbedner3420;927927]I think we can all definitively agree that Yoga is a piece of crap.[/quote]

Amani Toomer disagrees with you. In this case however, it's not going to heal JB's chronically malfunctioning hip. There doesnt appear to be a fix, other than not playing football. If we hold onto him just for depth fine, but he shouldnt be the starter. We need someone that can take every snap and improve along with the rest of the line.

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs2008/news/story?id=3816419]Alisha Ricardi examines NFL players who use yoga - ESPN[/url]

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

Yoga is no joke. Try it and see.

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

[quote=Mattyk;927943]Yoga is no joke. Try it and see.[/quote]

Just the Yoga in the Power 90 wears me out.

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

[quote=Mattyk;927943]Yoga is no joke. Try it and see.[/quote]

Agreed. I occasionally try my wife's yoga exercises, even on the Wii Fit it's tough!

It takes a lot of strength along with balance to hold those positions. Some days when my back is stiff from sitting in the office, I'll do some after I lift weights.


The Skins' players have done a lot of team Pilates drills in the offseason too. Another "lady" exercise.

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

[quote=skinsfan69;927932]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.[/quote]

So you're good with the Polumbo/Hurt/Smith combination at RT and believe Brown can add nothing to it?

Me, I want to see how that particular group pans out before cutting ties w/ Brown. Not saying he should be on the roster when the season begins, just saying, no need to cut him right at the moment when he may end up being useful to us.

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

[quote=mbedner3420;927927]I think we can all definitively agree that [B]Jamaal Brown's hip[/B] is a piece of crap.[/quote]

Fixed. Yoga works wonders.

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

No exercise can work miracles, but people are fooling themselves if they think yoga isn't a legit workout.

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

Had no clue so many people on here were so metro-sexual... weirdos. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go skinny jean shopping, picking up a new pair of hipster thick framed glasses, and sipping a few appletinis with my boys after work.

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

[quote=mbedner3420;927960]Had no clue so many people on here were so metro-sexual... weirdos. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go skinny jean shopping, picking up a new pair of hipster thick framed glasses, and sipping a few appletinis with my boys after work.[/quote]

Yoga is thousands of years old. I'm not sure that being into an ancient science of fitness is "hipster." "Traditional" might be a better description.

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

Hipsters don't exercise.

[IMG]http://cf1.8tracks.us/mix_covers/000/667/229/52431.max1024.jpg[/IMG]

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

Yoda is cool, I was hoping that working with Jamal Browken would some how transform him into a Jedi Tackle. The force apparently isnt strong with this Jamal Broken.

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

[quote=mbedner3420;927960]Had no clue so many people on here were so metro-sexual... weirdos. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go skinny jean shopping, picking up a new pair of hipster thick framed glasses, and sipping a few appletinis with my boys after work.[/quote]

Stay classy

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

[quote=mbedner3420;927960]Had no clue so many people on here were so metro-sexual... weirdos. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go skinny jean shopping, picking up a new pair of hipster thick framed glasses, and sipping a few appletinis with my boys after work.[/quote]

Right.

Try 90 minutes of it and get back to us. If you can even lift your arms to type by then.

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;927918]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.....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.[/quote]For my taste terms like 'limiting factor' are too subjective and unquantifiable.
However, you can also look at production metrics.
And as [I]unit[/I], due to the scheme, the OL was better then the sum of the individual parts especially in the running game.
However the unit still give up too many sacks and too many QB hits (near tops in the league in both areas).
However individually, Moss, Gaffney and the rest of the receiving corps played at a higher level then individual members of the OL but specifically RT according to PFF.


[quote]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. [/quote]Again, this speaks to your evaluation of the receivers vs the OL and your individual football theory/philosophy about the essential components of a passing offense.
(i think you're making a huge leap when you call Garcon a game-breaking WR)
For me first and foremost I want to create an environment for the optimal comfort of my rookie QB.
Imo there is no question that improved RT play and the resulting fewer sacks, fewer QB hits, improved rushing ability-->improved playaction ability, increased QB comfort/poise are all vital to QB play, especially rookie QBs. (who are more dependent upon pass protection for their success because they tend to hold the ball longer.)

[quote]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]I agree, but our RT play thus far isn't even league average.
And our receiving corps was at least league average with potential for improvement.




[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.[/quote]I can't speak for what other people are saying.

[quote]The general consensus is that drafting for need over BPA gets you into trouble.[/quote]Why would you assume that I'm advocating need over BPA?

[quote]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.[/quote]This is just an assumption or speculation that the FO didn't see any RT they thought could start this year/next year.
And even if that was there view point we won't know whether or not there evaluation was correct for a year or more.


[quote]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]First, unless Cousin wins the back-up job he is a total non-factor this season where a RT could have impact and benefit [I]this[/I] season.
Second, your scenario seems to project Cousins developing into a solid back-up QB (which is kinda difficult to assess for a QB that doesn't play) yet only projects the RT to make the OL 'slightly better.'
But, if both picks pan a RT vs a back-up QB I think its clear that a RT would have more benefit to Griffin the franchise QB and therefore has more benefit to the team.



[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.[/quote]I know its cliche now but hope is not strategy nor a solid plan.
But even if the plan was to have hope imo it seems just as logical if not more logical to have 'hope' that the WRs play would improve: Moss doesn't break his hand, Armstrong having a QB that can contect deep like in 2010 where he was tops in 19.8 YPC, Hankerson bouncing back from injury etc..
vs 'hoping' that Jammal Brown not only stays healthy but plays better then he's played thus far.

[quote]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]To each there own, its interesting to hear your reasoning.
Imo their decision to prioritize WR over RT was a mistake.
Every FO make thousands of choices and even championship teams make mistakes.
Hopefully RT won't prove to be an issue, especially in pass protection.


[quote]Question marks is putting it kindly. Our front seven better get to the QB quick.[/quote]There were some FA S that I liked better then ones we got.
Everyone raves about Madieu, but I guess I'll believe when I see it.
Tanard Jackson history of subpar tackling scares the beejesus out of me.
But, I think Reed is underrated as insurance against Meriweather flaking out.
And I like our 2nd year guy Gomes but don't know if he's ready to handle the responsibility of being a FS.
I really like the kid Bernstiens physical skillset, but he's probably fighting to make the team.

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

[quote=Mattyk;927967]Right.

Try 90 minutes of it and get back to us. If you can even lift your arms to type by then.[/quote]

Trust me, I don't doubt it's tough. Just trying to bring a little levity.

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

[quote=mbedner3420;927960]Had no clue so many people on here were so metro-sexual... weirdos. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go skinny jean shopping, picking up a new pair of hipster thick framed glasses, and sipping a few appletinis with my boys after work.[/quote]

YOU are going to look super fabulous!

A buddy dared me to do his yoga class for years saying it was brutal...hot house yoga where the room is like 110 degrees. I didn't think it was much of a workout but the eye candy was fantastic.

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

[quote=The Goat;927985]YOU are going to look super fabulous![/quote]

Thanks, I might splurge on a nice summer scarf that matches my sick kicks -- for the ladies (any Tosh fans out there?).

I have to imagine it draws a great deal of really attractive girls. However, I've never really seen the appeal. People seem to love it and that's great, but I just can't get past the zen, harmony, soul searching stuff that always seems to be associated with it. Just give me a gym and I'm set.

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

[URL="http://golfmk5.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3058149"]Yoga Pants[/URL]

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

[quote=HailGreen28;927707]Surely you can't be serious.
[IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Nva_FLbXkbQ/TPPRq05deTI/AAAAAAAAAvw/NfXyF_St-Sc/s1600/airplane.jpg[/IMG][/quote]

Dont you mean, "Shirley you can't be serious.."?????

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

So Shanahan says Brown will stay on the PUP for now. No timetable yet on his return

Meanwhile, Kentwan Balmer with an unexcused absence

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

Who?

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

Groundskeeper?

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

Hehe

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

Damn. I was hoping balmer was going to make the team. Wonder if he's mad about reps... Like the udfa RB from last year (or the year before) that skip out...

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

[quote=The Goat;928006]Who?[/quote]

Underachieving former first round DT that you, me, and a few others were kind of hoping for a few years ago.

So in Brown news, I asked someone about the waived-injured rumor. Response "No way. They don't want to pay him anything to sit" best case is he's healthy enough for them to just release him."

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

Have there been any updates on Willie Smith.

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

[quote=Mechanix544;928001]Dont you mean, "Shirley you can't be serious.."?????[/quote][IMG]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ozr-gLY1fGE/TPfz3sezhMI/AAAAAAAAAow/RKhgQVP67kQ/s1600/leslie%2Bnielsen.jpg[/IMG]
Don't call me Shirley.

:silly:

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

I was hoping someone knew something about Willie Smith. Shannahan said that Chris Baker has a huge upside and has lost thirty pounds

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

[quote=T.O.Killa;928035]I was hoping someone knew something about Willie Smith. Shannahan said that Chris Baker has a huge upside and has lost thirty pounds[/quote]

apparently he is out there but have a shitty camp so far. He is probably still butthurt from getting run over by Rob Action Jackson

Chris Baker is a solid player, i think he will make the squad and potentially get solid reps in games.

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

Thats what I was affraid of, because they have just stopped talking about him all together. He is not mentioned anymore in any speculation of who will replace Brown. If that is the case, thats a shame. I had high hopes for him.

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

Kentwan Balmer = major bust. What a waste of talent. With multiple chances the dude still can't get his act together.

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

[quote=30gut;927968]Again, this speaks to your evaluation of the receivers vs the OL and your individual football theory/philosophy about the essential components of a passing offense.
(i think you're making a huge leap when you call Garcon a game-breaking WR)
For me first and foremost I want to create an environment for the optimal comfort of my rookie QB.
Imo there is no question that improved RT play and the resulting fewer sacks, fewer QB hits, improved rushing ability-->improved playaction ability, increased QB comfort/poise are all vital to QB play, especially rookie QBs. (who are more dependent upon pass protection for their success because they tend to hold the ball longer.)[/quote]

Hey, don't just take JR's take on the situation, take Mike Shanahan's actions on it. Remember last off-season? Remember how Shanahan brought in a crap ton of WRs to compete? Remember how he even picked up David Anderson during the season? Notice he didn't make as many changes with the OL, yet they played pretty damn good the last 1/2 of the season once they had a chance to jell.

Also, what did Shanahan do immediately this off-season? He went after WR, which is a clear sign that he has thought the WR has been the weak link for a couple years now. Granted, he did bring in some FA OL, but their asking price was probably more than he would be willing to pay.

All in all, I think Shanahan's actions back up JR's notion that the WR spot has been our weak link on the offense. This is not to say it wouldn't hurt to upgrade what we have, but this notion we put a "Hogs" or a all pro-bowl type of line in front of our QB is unrealistic.

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

[quote=NC_Skins;928047]All in all, I think Shanahan's actions back up JR's notion that the WR spot has been our weak link on the offense. This is not to say it wouldn't hurt to upgrade what we have[/quote]
Um, the question isn't about whether the FO actions speak to their assessment that WR was a higher priority then RT.
Clearly the outcomes suggest that was their thought process.
The question is were they right? That remains to be seen.

[quote]but this notion we put a "Hogs" or a all pro-bowl type of line in front of our QB is unrealistic[/quote]Um...okay? But is that your notion? Because it surely isn't mine.

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

Was told BOTH of Brown's hips are F'd and he needs to be cut. Sad, but he is 31 so I doubt he'll ever be healthy. A lot of cap space we can save too if we cut him.

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

[quote=30gut;928051]Um...okay? But is that your notion? Because it surely isn't mine.[/quote]

Most definitely not, and forgive me if I gave off the impression you implied as much. I've just seen all too often how people keep harping on building the lines and they aren't going to be happy unless the team is spending 1st and 2nd rounders on OL, when quality OL can be found in the later rounds in the NFL. Aaron Rodgers did fine with a crappy OL, but he had wonderful WRs/TEs. You don't need 5 pro-bowlers on the OL to have great production from your offense. You do however, need a fantastic QB and WRs to get it done.

Were they right in their assessment? Well, considering they have been in this business all of their life, and the HC has won 2 Super Bowls, you'll excuse me if I defer to his judgement.

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

[quote=InsaneBoost;928052]Was told BOTH of Brown's hips are F'd and he needs to be cut. Sad, but he is 31 so I doubt he'll ever be healthy. A lot of cap space we can save too if we cut him.[/quote]

I wholeheartedly agree. Remember what Mike Shanahan said about Jammal Brown earlier in the off season. Brown was going to have to prove that he could stay healthy in order to make the Redskins roster in 2012. When we read reports around two months ago that Brown was taking Yoga courses, was attaining his flexibility, strengthening his bad hip, and was feeling great, we all thought that he had finally put his injury behind him. We were wrong.

After spending the last two seasons on IR, Brown needs to do something and he hasn't shown that he's the equivalent of the 3rd round pick that Bruce Allen traded to the Saints to get him.

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

i knew this was gonna happen.

we missed veteran OL signings like Jeff Otah, Jeff Saturday, Carl Nicks.
that cap penalty KILLED US.

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

They should go ahead and cut Brown and give Polumbus or Smith a chance to win the RT position. I still think Smith can surprise, let's give him a chance when the games begin. If neither pans out, then when the 53 man roster cuts occur someone will be available from another team. I'm not worried.