We've got big trouble on the OL.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

For my taste terms like 'limiting factor' are too subjective and unquantifiable.
However, you can also look at production metrics.
And as unit, 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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

Except that people keep saying, as part of this discussion, the 3rd or 4th round pick should have been a tackle and that Cousins was a luxury pick. Again, I disagree.

I can't speak for what other people are saying.

The general consensus is that drafting for need over BPA gets you into trouble.

Why would you assume that I'm advocating need over BPA?

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.

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.

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.

First, unless Cousin wins the back-up job he is a total non-factor this season where a RT could have impact and benefit this 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.)

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.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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

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.

but this notion we put a "Hogs" or a all pro-bowl type of line in front of our QB is unrealistic

Um...okay? But is that your notion? Because it surely isn't mine.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Um...okay? But is that your notion? Because it surely isn't mine.

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.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.

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.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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.

Um...okay?
I stated that the Packers drafted 2 1st round OTs.
Your diatribe doesn't change that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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.

lol, This actually speaks to my 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.

Also, why would RT become a weak link? Was it last year?

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.