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

[quote=NC_Skins;928055]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.[/quote]Well you should find someone that espouses this point of view and have this argument with them.

As an aside I'm not sure what you mean by crappy, but Rodgers OL was far from bad.
And IIRC they've since added two 1st round picks.

[quote=NC_Skins]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.[/quote]By this logic the FO is infallible.
Imo its fairly evident the Jammal Brown experiment was a mistake for the FO.
It wasn't there first mistake and i'm certain it won't be the last.
And such is the case for every FO even for teams that win championships.
Hopefully RT doesn't become a weak link in the offense.

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

[quote=SFREDSKIN;928061]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.[/quote]

There's already been a report that Tyler Polumbus was receiving reps at right tackle in place of Jammal Brown. No word on Willie Smith though.

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

[quote=T.O.Killa;928035]Shannahan said that Chris Baker has a huge upside and has lost thirty pounds.[/quote]

In other words, he's gone from having a huge backside to having a huge upside.

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

There's always a chance to sign guys from other teams' practice squads...

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

At this point I'm actually OK with signing some of those aging guys (even if they're a bad fit for the ZBS) to have an actual starter. I was fine with Polumbus last year, but reading about guys who are going to get cut owning him... makes me a little nervous.

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

Too bad Big Mike Williams didn't work out. When healthy, he was a good lineman for us.


I think Polumbus will surprise us and take over the position all year. I'm hoping so, at least.

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

[quote=30gut;928064]
As an aside I'm not sure what you mean by crappy, but Rodgers OL was far from bad.
And IIRC they've since added two 1st round picks.[/quote]

Yeah, because they had the luxury of being able to pick OL in the first rounds. They are stacked at QB/WR/TE/OLB and their defense was one of the tops in the NFL so they can afford to spend those picks on OL. When our skills positions are that of theirs, we can do the same. Rodgers OL was horrible 2-3 years ago and was even up there with Jason Campbell on the most amount of sacks taken. Their run game was all but non-existent as well or it appeared that way.



[quote=30gut;928064]By this logic the FO is infallible.
Imo its fairly evident the Jammal Brown experiment was a mistake for the FO.
It wasn't there first mistake and i'm certain it won't be the last.
And such is the case for every FO even for teams that win championships.
Hopefully RT doesn't become a weak link in the offense.[/quote]

They aren't infallible as noted by the horrible McDummy trade. However, you act as if the team can predict a person's health. If he passed a physical and checks out with the doctors, then it was worth a shot trading a 3rd or 4th rounder for a pro-bowl tackle. I'm sure many would have done the same.

Also, why would RT become a weak link? Was it last year? In fact, the line performed better when TW and JB weren't in the lineup. (mostly) I posted the starting lineup the last 4 games.


12 @ Seattle Seahawks 110 yards
13 New York Jets 100 yards
14 New England Patriots 170 yards
15 @ New York Giants 123 yards
16 Minnesota Vikings 141 yards
17 @ Philadelphia Eagles 130 yards


The first half of last season was dismal only having two games over 100 yards rushing (172 and 196) against the Cards and Rams. The second half they turned it on and produced against VERY good teams with legit defense lines. We need WRs that can get open and that have the ability to produce YAC as well. We had none up until now.

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

[quote=NC_Skins;928145]Yeah, because they had the luxury of being able to pick OL in the first rounds. They are stacked at QB/WR/TE/OLB and their defense was one of the tops in the NFL so they can afford to spend those picks on OL. When our skills positions are that of theirs, we can do the same.[/quote]Um...okay?
I stated that the Packers drafted 2 1st round OTs.
Your diatribe doesn't change that.

[quote]Rodgers OL was horrible 2-3 years ago and was even up there with Jason Campbell on the most amount of sacks taken. Their run game was all but non-existent as well or it appeared that way.[/quote]All sacks are not created equal.
Quick pressure on a (1.2-1.5s) on 3-step drop where the QB gets hit even after a completion is much worse then a pressure after 2s on a 5-7 step drop.
Zorn/Campbell used a 3 step drop heavy WCO vs McCarthy/Rodgers 5-7 step drop heavy vertical WCO.

Also the Packers sack totals 2009/2010-32/38 Redskins 2009/2010-44/46

The Packers don't run the ball by choice.



[quote] However, you act as if the team can predict a person's health. If he passed a physical and checks out with the doctors, then it was worth a shot trading a 3rd or 4th rounder for a pro-bowl tackle. I'm sure many would have done the same.[/quote]You make a lot of false assumptions about my position.
I don't have a problem with bringing Jammal Brown in, its the subsequent re-signing and lack of up-grade after his sub-standard and injured plagued performance I consider a mistake.
And Jammal Brown's health was a 'prediction' it was a gamble.
He was injured when the Saints releases him, he was injured when we signed him, he's been injured during the season and he's injured now.

[quote]...In fact, the line performed better when TW and JB weren't in the lineup. (mostly) I posted the starting lineup the last 4 games.[/quote]lol, This actually speaks to [I][B]my[/B][/I] point about Jammal Brown's level of play and why RT should have been addressed.
I also noticed an uptick in the OL plays when Hurt and Polombus settled into their positions. (to be objective credit has to be given to the Helu and Royster)
And the advanced metics from Profootball Focus bear this out as Tyler Polombus graded out less poorly IIRC (-16ish) vs Jammal Brown (-18ish).
However being less bad doesn't equal good.
And if a journeyman OL pressed into the line-up outperforms your oft injured starter then imo its time to replace that 'starter'.
And extending that thought out further the level of performance from Brown/Polombus could very well be improved and likely matched by a mid-round OL.
Extending this line of thinking further...
You would still need to target and draft OL even if you think Willie Smith can be Jammal Brown's replacement.
But you would still need (a) a back-up for Willie Smith (b) a capable player if Willie Smith doesn't replicate his level of play (c) insurance against Trent weed use

Polombus was basically a gift, he's cheap and at the very least we know he's a capable back-up that can start some games and not vomit on himself.
But as a prospect Polombus wasn't highly regarded, he could keep improving and become a solid starter like Kory or he could regress like Heyer.
But, what if they could've drafted a prospect that is potentially better then Polombus going forward?
2 young cheap OTs (osentensibly both better then Jammal Brown) and improving for the future?
Have them compete in an open competition best OT plays that would have been the ulitmate win-win even.


[quote]Also, why would RT become a weak link? Was it last year?[/quote]Where did I say RT would become a weak link? (is everyone of your replies gonna contain things I didn't say and views I don't hold?)
And if you meant to ask how could RT become a weak link my answers would be the same as yours or anyone elses: if there is substandard level of play from the starter and lack of quality depth.

And in as much as Jammal Brown was one of the worst RT/OT in football, yes RT was a weak link last year.

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

Panthers cut Jeff Otah. Do we claim him?

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

I like Jeff Otah but if there is one tackle who is more broken down than Jammal Brown, it's Jeff Otah.

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

That's a shame, he is only 26...

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

[quote=mbedner3420;928188]That's a shame, he is only 26...[/quote]

Yep. Tragic. But he has hardly seen the field seen he was 24.

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

Otah was Great when Healthy; Problem though was that he couldn't stay healthy.

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

[quote=30gut;928183]Um...okay?
I stated that the Packers drafted 2 1st round OTs.
Your diatribe doesn't change that.[/quote]

Diatribe? Nobody is attacking you or forcing anything. Quit being a drama queen.


[quote=30gut;928183]lol, This actually speaks to [I][B]my[/B][/I] point about Jammal Brown's level of play and why RT should have been addressed.[/quote]
[quote=30gut;928183]And in as much as Jammal Brown was one of the worst RT/OT in football, yes RT was a weak link last year.[/quote]

It's really not fair to assess his play when you know the man is playing injured. Now, if you want to argue whether he should be playing or not, that is a different argument all together and a valid one at that.



[quote=30gut;928183]But, what if they could've drafted a prospect that is potentially better then Polombus going forward? [/quote]

You can't depend on draft picks panning out or becoming better talent than what you currently have. That too is a gamble as well. We can play the "what if" game all day long.



[quote=30gut;928183]Where did I say RT would become a weak link? (is everyone of your replies gonna contain things I didn't say and views I don't hold?)
And if you meant to ask how could RT become a weak link my answers would be the same as yours or anyone elses: if there is substandard level of play from the starter and lack of quality depth.[/quote]

I didn't claim you did say that. I simply showed you the stats and who was playing RT. Now if you want to talk about the DEPTH of the OL, then that could be a valid concern. Then again, we have that same concern with many positions on this team. QB/ILB/CB/S/PK/P/WR...etc I respect your opinion, but we'll agree to disagree on the matter.


I'll remind you again, it's only 1 week into training camp. Long ways to go.

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

[quote=mbedner3420;928185]Panthers cut Jeff Otah. Do we claim him?[/quote]

Trade one injured tackle for another? *mind boggled*

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

[quote=NC_Skins;928205]Diatribe? Nobody is attacking you or forcing anything. Quit being a drama queen.[/quote]You kinda jumped off on a tangent and to be honest your initial approach seemed on the loud/dramatic side.
But, lets keep it football.

[quote]It's really not fair to assess his play when you know the man is playing injured. Now, if you want to argue whether he should be playing or not, that is a different argument all together and a valid one at that.[/quote]Once your on the field there are no excuses.

[quote]You can't depend on draft picks panning out or becoming better talent than what you currently have. That too is a gamble as well. We can play the "what if" game all day long.[/quote]Of course its a gamble its a gamble that every team takes every season at various positions.
The question is whether its more of less of gamble then gambling on Jammal Brown's hip.

[quote]I respect your opinion, but we'll agree to disagree on the matter.[/quote]And I you, I'm secretly hope/suspect that Compton is a sleeping giant.

[quote]I'll remind you again, it's only 1 week into training camp. Long ways to go.[/quote]Of course, but when did Noah build the ark?
If the OL holds up the new look offense with Griffin could be dynamic.

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

[quote=NC_Skins;928206]Trade one injured tackle for another? *mind boggled*[/quote]

Brown would be more reliable and on the field more.


Otah has missed something like 31 of the last 35 games.

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

[quote=30gut;928213]Of course, but when did Noah build the ark?
If the OL holds up the new look offense with Griffin could be dynamic.[/quote]

That's a trick question because Noah never existed. :rofl: :silly:


I will say that CB/OL/ILB should be a huge priority going into next off-season. I do worry about our quality at depth(and some starting) at each of these spots.

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

[quote=NC_Skins;928221]That's a trick question because Noah never existed. :rofl: :silly:

I will say that CB/OL/ILB should be a huge priority going into next off-season. I do worry about our quality at depth(and some starting) at each of these spots.[/quote]Touche, but even mythos has a message.

I wish I could make it out to camp one of these days.
These is so much going on the beat guys don't even look at.

Yeah it would be nice to get a pipeline of developmental players at CB.
But more then CB, Safety is what gives me pause.
They could be really good or woefully average depending on whether a few players bounce back. (My longshot camp crush is Jordan Bernstein, love the kids skillset, but wonder if he's actually worth developing or just a guy with great measurables)

I hear you at ILB, I like Riley a lot and have high hopes for Keenan but after that its bupkis. (no slight to Lorenzo, he's one of my favorite players on the team)
And there is gonna be a huge hole on the team when Fletcher calls it a career.
I hope another leader emerges on defense before then, because even if an adequate player is found at ILB there will be a huge leadership void when #59 is gone. (i feel sad now)

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

[quote=NC_Skins;928221]That's a trick question because Noah never existed. :rofl: :silly:[/quote]

Uh, your comment nothing to do with the Redskins, and how do you know a historical person never existed? According to the one of the oldest documented books in the world, this man existed, this historical book has identified thousands of historical events and individuals and locations quite accurately, verified by multiple external sources....just because the story around him is a challenge to believe does not mean that he never existed. Also, why would all major Monotheistic religions put all their cards on the table supporting the existence of Noah, if there was any question of his existence, the newer religions, Christianity and Islam would correct the original.
They did not, in fact they referred back to Noah several times.

The only real question is, how big was the flood, not did it happen and certainly not that Noah was just made up. Also, for Christians, they HAVE to believe Noah existed, why? Jesus himself spoke about Noah, and if he is sinless, that would make him a liar and a sinner if Noah didn't exist, which would render Christianity void. So regardless of your acceptance of the historical Noah..we need some help on the Oline.

So, if there was a RT available named Noah with starting potential....I would recommend signing him, pronto.

On another note, I think the value of a blocking TE/FB has just gone through the roof...where is Mike Sellers? I am thinking 2 WR sets by wk 3 if things get out of hand...I am thinking of Gibbs 2.0 with max protection for Brunell again...I just don't know if Shanny will adapt like that. It will be interesting to see if he keeps some Beefy blocking non linemen. This plays to Cooley's advantage, at least he attempts to block, Paulson may have a shot after all. We will see during preseason games if Shanny keeps in a FB or blocking TE to help out on the right side. I say he better!

I'd rather 2 WR go out and RG3 scramble for well blocked yards than send everyone out and panic and get crushed.

It may all be ok, but if not....I'd make sure we have a 2nd line of blocking on most snaps

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

[quote=skinsnut;928246]Uh, your comment nothing to do with the Redskins, and how do you know a historical person never existed? According to the one of the oldest documented books in the world, this man existed, this historical book has identified thousands of historical events and individuals and locations quite accurately, verified by multiple external sources....just because the story around him is a challenge to believe does not mean that he never existed. Also, why would all major Monotheistic religions put all their cards on the table supporting the existence of Noah, if there was any question of his existence, the newer religions, Christianity and Islam would correct the original.
They did not, in fact they referred back to Noah several times.

The only real question is, how big was the flood, not did it happen and certainly not that Noah was just made up. Also, for Christians, they HAVE to believe Noah existed, why? Jesus himself spoke about Noah, and if he is sinless, that would make him a liar and a sinner if Noah didn't exist, which would render Christianity void. So regardless of your acceptance of the historical Noah..we need some help on the Oline.[/quote]

mother of god!

:doh:


Somebody please :spank: me the next time I make a joke.

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

It's good advice to never mix politics and religion with good football conversation. Someone is always going to respond passionately. ;)

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

I love to talk about religion as much as anyone. But I vote that we exclude any talk about religion from the football threads until at least February 2013.

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

[quote=Lotus;928265]I love to talk about religion as much as anyone. But I vote that we exclude any talk about religion from the football threads until at least February 2013.[/quote]

Haven't posted on here in a while, but I certainly second that motion.

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

I was at practice today and Willie Smith was out there, playing third string RT. RG3 looked pretty bad today. I was happy to read he had a bad practice, because I was wondering if this was what he really looked like, other days.

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

[quote=Lotus;928265]I love to talk about religion as much as anyone. But I vote that we exclude any talk about religion from the football threads until at least February 2013.[/quote]

I pray that we can keep religion out of these threads. As God is my witness, I will do my part.

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

Joe Gibbs is very upset with all of you. Of course Jesus needs to discussed as part of football.

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

[quote=skinsnut;928246]So regardless of your acceptance of the historical Noah..we need some help on the Oline.[/quote]

I agree with skinsnut that Redskins fans should believe that we need some help on the Oline whether or not they accept the historical Noah.

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

[quote=KI Skins Fan;928321]I agree with skinsnut that Redskins fans should believe that we need some help on the Oline whether or not they accept the historical Noah.[/quote]

if we had two silverbacks as bookend tackles, we'd be set. There is your noah tie in.

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

[quote=Monksdown;928376]if we had two silverbacks as bookend tackles, we'd be set. There is your noah tie in.[/quote]

Well played!

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

[quote=JoeRedskin;928288]I pray that we can keep religion out of these threads. As God is my witness, I will do my part.[/quote]

Amen.

Jesus Christ. I'm sick of this religion talk.

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

[quote=hooskins;928401]Jesus Christ. I'm sick of this religion talk.[/quote]

omg

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A0-u85aAYg&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/url]

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

[YT]cBhj73WtiZU[/YT]

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

[quote=T.O.Killa;928285]I was at practice today and Willie Smith was out there, playing third string RT. RG3 looked pretty bad today. I was happy to read he had a bad practice, because I was wondering if this was what he really looked like, other days.[/quote]

Maybe he's not as good as everyone thought he was or perhaps Smith was having an off day at practice. He showed up big time in the final four or five games last year. The only thing I can think of is maybe he's slightly out of shape.

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

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;928455]Maybe he's not as good as everyone thought he was or perhaps Smith was having an off day at practice. He showed up big time in the final four or five games last year. The only thing I can think of is maybe he's slightly out of shape.[/quote]

I still have faith in him, let's wait till he gets in a game and see how he performs. Last year he started rough, but got better and held his own against 4 great pass rushers in Andre Carter, Pierre Paul, Jared Allen and Trent Cole.

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

I'm high on Tyler Polumbus. He had a decent year last year. If he indeed is named the official starter if Jammal Brown misses time due to that hip injury that will never heal, then Polumbus should be the starter at right tackle.

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

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;928477]I'm high on Tyler Polumbus. He had a decent year last year. If he indeed is named the official starter if Jammal Brown misses time due to that hip injury that will never heal, then Polumbus should be the starter at right tackle.[/quote]

I agree. Our line should basically sort out as follows

LT - Trent Williams
LG - Kory L/LeRibeus (pending Kory's health)
C- Montgomery
RG - Chester
RT - Polumbus

[QUOTE=Dirtbag59;928481]I agree. Our line should basically sort out as follows

LT - Trent Williams
LG - Kory L/LeRibeus (pending Kory's health)
C- Montgomery
RG - Chester
RT - Polumbus[/QUOTE]

That's actually not a bad lineup. We have a top ten left tackle and that makes everyone on the line better.