TheLynchTrain Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 "Obviously, he's been sensational, really, on the field. I don't want to hex him, but hopefully it'll turn out fine." http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 So what your saying is, Big Ben and Aaron Rodgers abilities to make plays because of their scrambling capabilities despite poor O-line play somehow makes the O-line perform better, and that train of thought makes sense to you? Why don't you take a look at the teams Aaron Rodgers beat and then lost to before you go bragging about Aaron Rodgers. Chances are if Rodgers had a decent O-line he might be 7-0 because he's that good in my opinion. Trent Edwards is a pocket QB, he's not Big Ben or Aaron Rodgers, I assume you do realize that correct, so what do they have to do with our O-lines inexperience and capabilities to pass protect and run block, good grief, give me a break... Your definition of "not a pocket QB" seems to be something akin to "willing to scramble to make a play". These guys don't have any more athletic ability than Edwards, they're just willing to use their feet to make a play. There's no reason, other than mental makeup, that Trent couldn't at least attempt to do the same thing. And as to your question, the answer is yes: those QBs absolutely make their offensive lines better. Think about it: if a QB can beat you in the passing game, your defense has to loosen up, which creates space for the run (fewer guys in the box, less blitzing, etc.). It's actually a very common thing amongst strong passing offenses. If that train of thought doesn't make sense to you, then I'm afraid this discussion isn't going anywhere. The point here, that you keep trying to twist out of, is that those guys don't have any better pass protection than Edwards, which is the very concept that you point to as an excuse for his poor play. My point is that a good QB can excel without great, good, or even average pass protection, as evidenced by the cases I presented. If you want to boil it down to those guys being better athletes/scramblers, then fine, it must mean Edwards isn't a good enough athlete/scrambler to play QB at the NFL level. Because no QB's pass protection is ever going to be perfect in the NFL. Defenders get paid too, as do defensive coordinators, and occasionally the QB is going to have to make a play without 6 seconds to throw the ball. We have a guy that can't do that, and thus a guy that can't succeed. Or, in reality, there are plenty of times during games when Edwards has adequate time to throw, and he doesn't get the job done. On the times where he's pressured, he doesn't get the job done. Either way, he's not good enough. I'm through debating this subject with you (especially in a Jairus Byrd thread--sorry for inadvertant threadjacking OP); the facts are the facts, and I stand by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I couldn't agree more. Remember when these dolts converted Coy Wire to LB at 218 lbs or something? Back then it seemed like a novel savy use of existing talent, little did we know it was just our first glimpse of incompetence and the penchant for trying to put square pegs in round holes. Coy Wire is a backup linebacker and got some playing time on a playoff team last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Your definition of "not a pocket QB" seems to be something akin to "willing to scramble to make a play". These guys don't have any more athletic ability than Edwards, they're just willing to use their feet to make a play. There's no reason, other than mental makeup, that Trent couldn't at least attempt to do the same thing. And as to your question, the answer is yes: those QBs absolutely make their offensive lines better. Think about it: if a QB can beat you in the passing game, your defense has to loosen up, which creates space for the run (fewer guys in the box, less blitzing, etc.). It's actually a very common thing amongst strong passing offenses. If that train of thought doesn't make sense to you, then I'm afraid this discussion isn't going anywhere. The point here, that you keep trying to twist out of, is that those guys don't have any better pass protection than Edwards, which is the very concept that you point to as an excuse for his poor play. My point is that a good QB can excel without great, good, or even average pass protection, as evidenced by the cases I presented. If you want to boil it down to those guys being better athletes/scramblers, then fine, it must mean Edwards isn't a good enough athlete/scrambler to play QB at the NFL level. Because no QB's pass protection is ever going to be perfect in the NFL. Defenders get paid too, as do defensive coordinators, and occasionally the QB is going to have to make a play without 6 seconds to throw the ball. We have a guy that can't do that, and thus a guy that can't succeed. Or, in reality, there are plenty of times during games when Edwards has adequate time to throw, and he doesn't get the job done. On the times where he's pressured, he doesn't get the job done. Either way, he's not good enough. I'm through debating this subject with you (especially in a Jairus Byrd thread--sorry for inadvertant threadjacking OP); the facts are the facts, and I stand by them. Maybe you should ask Jim Kelly why he was notorious for taking his O-line out to dinner and was always careful and very specific when he complemented his Lineman for the success of the Offense. It all starts up front, some folks get it and some folks simply do not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Maybe you should ask Jim Kelly why he was notorious for taking his O-line out to dinner and was always careful and very specific when he complemented his Lineman for the success of the Offense. It all starts up front, some folks get it and some folks simply do not... I think you're vastly underestimating how FAST the ball came out when Kelly we QB. The OLine didn't have to be great, it hardly had to be good. Also, Ben Roth. won a Super Bowl behind arguably one of the league's worst OLines. Can an OLine make a QB better, yes (Brady). Does it always happen that way? Absolutely not. It most definitely happens in reverse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I think you're vastly underestimating how FAST the ball came out when Kelly we QB. The OLine didn't have to be great, it hardly had to be good. Also, Ben Roth. won a Super Bowl behind arguably one of the league's worst OLines. Can an OLine make a QB better, yes (Brady). Does it always happen that way? Absolutely not. It most definitely happens in reverse. You think like our FO thinks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynical Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Maybe you should ask Jim Kelly why he was notorious for taking his O-line out to dinner and was always careful and very specific when he complemented his Lineman for the success of the Offense. Would not be surprised to find out the fiasco of 89 is the biggest reason Kelly did this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Maybe you should ask Jim Kelly why he was notorious for taking his O-line out to dinner and was always careful and very specific when he complemented his Lineman for the success of the Offense. It all starts up front, some folks get it and some folks simply do not... Ok, that does it... How can it possibly "all start up front" if you yourself admit that a QB can make the passing offense work simply by scrambling a little bit? How can it possibly "all start up front" if the team that's allowing the most sacks in the NFL has the #9 passing offense in the league? How can it possibly "all start up front" if the team that allowed the most sacks in the NFL in 2008 won the Superbowl? How can it possibly "all start up front" if the 2008 Patriots allowed 48 sacks (10 more than Buffalo in 2008) and won 11 games with Matt Cassel? But wait, there's more! The 2007 Patriots, who went 18-1, allowed only 5 fewer sacks than the Bills, and outrushed Buffalo by a mere 3.1 ypg (115.6 to 112.5)...did it "all start up front" there? I mean, New England was 18-1, and Buffalo was 7-9, and by the looks of things the O-lines were very similar...I wonder what the difference was... Your answer to this is that "Jim Kelly was 'notorious' for taking his O-line out to dinner and was always careful and very specific when he complemented his Lineman for the success of the Offense"...really? That's what tells you that it "all starts up front"? The fact that a player built a relationship with his teammates? No, Dog, it does not "all start up front". If anything, it all starts behind center. If you don't get that, look at the last 6 Superbowl winners, then come back and talk to me. But like you said: some people get it, and some people don't. You were just wrong regarding the side of that line on which you reside. But go ahead and ignore the facts if it makes you feel better; I've built my case well enough for it to stand on its own now. I'll see you in the next thread in which you try to convince someone that it "all starts up front"...probably by talking about who Joe Montana used to take out to dinner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 [/b] You think like our FO thinks Most people will never get it. They will quote stats and wish everything away. Sack stats would seem concrete yet even they are misleading. It really is different to have six seconds to throw and get pushed out of bounds for a 2 yard loss than getting your skull pounded in 3 seconds after the snap, no? But, they both count as sacks. Not only that, does TOP enter in? The Bills defense is on the field most of the game. One would think that this too might make the sack total look not as bad as what is really happening. Same thing with forced checkdowns. Again, most will never get it. After all, Troy Aikman and Emmit Smith won those superbowls for Dallas, not Erik Smith and Leon Lett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Most people will never get it. They will quote stats and wish everything away. Sack stats would seem concrete yet even they are misleading. It really is different to have six seconds to throw and get pushed out of bounds for a 2 yard loss than getting your skull pounded in 3 seconds after the snap, no? But, they both count as sacks. Not only that, does TOP enter in? The Bills defense is on the field most of the game. One would think that this too might make the sack total look not as bad as what is really happening. Same thing with forced checkdowns. Again, most will never get it. After all, Troy Aikman and Emmit Smith won those superbowls for Dallas, not Erik Smith and Leon Lett. Who are you discrediting here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oak tree 12 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Just like Edwards, Roscoe, Witner, etc I am betting that by game 16 Byrd will be concentrating on his left foot being in the right place, and he is not deep enough on the snap on a trap play and will as the rest have lose his confidence and never intercept another ball. Stop using your abiltiy Byrd before Dickie gets you. Jauron coaches in such a negative fashion that Byrd is destined to follow in the footsteps of many.... Question, except for money what reason is there that Dickie is actually still the coach... dumbest most ridiculous post of the week. he sure looks like he ruining him LOL. just ridiculous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Maybe you should ask Jim Kelly why he was notorious for taking his O-line out to dinner and was always careful and very specific when he complemented his Lineman for the success of the Offense. It all starts up front, some folks get it and some folks simply do not... He was buying the rolex watches every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Angel Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Just like Edwards, Roscoe, Witner, etc I am betting that by game 16 Byrd will be concentrating on his left foot being in the right place, and he is not deep enough on the snap on a trap play and will as the rest have lose his confidence and never intercept another ball. Stop using your abiltiy Byrd before Dickie gets you. Jauron coaches in such a negative fashion that Byrd is destined to follow in the footsteps of many.... Question, except for money what reason is there that Dickie is actually still the coach... you may not be a Jauron head coach fan, but he's a top notch defensive backs coach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Ok, that does it... How can it possibly "all start up front" if you yourself admit that a QB can make the passing offense work simply by scrambling a little bit? How can it possibly "all start up front" if the team that's allowing the most sacks in the NFL has the #9 passing offense in the league? How can it possibly "all start up front" if the team that allowed the most sacks in the NFL in 2008 won the Superbowl? How can it possibly "all start up front" if the 2008 Patriots allowed 48 sacks (10 more than Buffalo in 2008) and won 11 games with Matt Cassel? But wait, there's more! The 2007 Patriots, who went 18-1, allowed only 5 fewer sacks than the Bills, and outrushed Buffalo by a mere 3.1 ypg (115.6 to 112.5)...did it "all start up front" there? I mean, New England was 18-1, and Buffalo was 7-9, and by the looks of things the O-lines were very similar...I wonder what the difference was... Your answer to this is that "Jim Kelly was 'notorious' for taking his O-line out to dinner and was always careful and very specific when he complemented his Lineman for the success of the Offense"...really? That's what tells you that it "all starts up front"? The fact that a player built a relationship with his teammates? No, Dog, it does not "all start up front". If anything, it all starts behind center. If you don't get that, look at the last 6 Superbowl winners, then come back and talk to me. But like you said: some people get it, and some people don't. You were just wrong regarding the side of that line on which you reside. But go ahead and ignore the facts if it makes you feel better; I've built my case well enough for it to stand on its own now. I'll see you in the next thread in which you try to convince someone that it "all starts up front"...probably by talking about who Joe Montana used to take out to dinner. Anybody that knows football realizes it all starts up front and I don't have to convince them of anything because they already know as much. Why don't you ask the owners of some of the better teams where all of their money is going or ask Russ Brandon why Jason Peters slipped away. Everything offensively is contingent on the O-line run blocking and pass protecting well. It doesn't mater how good you are at the skilled positions, without a good O-line it doesn't mean a thing. Just because a QB or two in the league defies the odds and makes plays despite playing behind a poor O-line doesn't mean they all will and why that is so hard to understand is beyond me. It all starts up front, its as easy to understand or as hard as you want to make it. As an owner or GM you can pay the price for good O-linemen or you can pay the price for not having them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Anybody that knows football realizes You've been arguing with Alpha too long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Anybody that knows football realizes it all starts up front and I don't have to convince them of anything because they already know as much. Why don't you ask the owners of some of the better teams where all of their money is going or ask Russ Brandon why Jason Peters slipped away. Everything offensively is contingent on the O-line run blocking and pass protecting well. It doesn't mater how good you are at the skilled positions, without a good O-line it doesn't mean a thing. Just because a QB or two in the league defies the odds and makes plays despite playing behind a poor O-line doesn't mean they all will and why that is so hard to understand is beyond me. It all starts up front, its as easy to understand or as hard as you want to make it. As an owner or GM you can pay the price for good O-linemen or you can pay the price for not having them. So what you're saying is that, despite all of the evidence to the contrary--which I have presented several times in this very thread (on this very page no less)--you're going to stick to that faulty line of logic? Here it is, one last time, in simple English: There are plenty of statistics (i.e. offensive rankings), game results (i.e. Superbowl victories), and current performance indicators (i.e. YPC, YPA) that completely disprove the point you continuously try to make, and yet you argue without providing any relevant facts or reason. Your belligerence in the face of being (quite literally) proven wrong about needing a good offensive line for a QB (or an offense, for that matter) to succeed is astounding. The summation of your points has been: - Well other QBs scramble and Trent doesn't - Jim Kelly used to talk up his offensive linemen and take them to dinner - Owners of the better teams spend all their money on the offensive line Since I've already debunked the first 2, I'll now rip the third point to shreds: Let's start with this: who are the "better teams in the league"? How about: Colts, Patriots, Steelers, Giants, and this year the Saints and Vikings. So let's now move to the question of "where do they spend the greatest amount of money"? Colts - Peyton Manning has a $100M+ contract, and will likely get a new one in the next year or so that pays him $50M in guaranteed money. By contrast, their highest paid offensive lineman is C Jeff Saturday, who makes less than Geoff Hangartner ($3.7M vs. $4M). They start a rookie free agent at left tackle over former 2nd round pick Tony Ugoh. Patriots - Tom Brady has a $100M+ contract. Their highest paid offensive lineman is LT Matt Light, who signed a 3-year extension worth $18M back in 2007. I know you can do the math, but (just for emphasis) $100M is far greater than $18M. Steelers - Ben Roethlisberger has a $100M+ contract. Their highest paid offensive lineman is LT Max Starks, who is playing for the Transition tag value of $7.8M. Since their o-line is one of the worst in the NFL in pass protection, and is mediocre at best in run blocking, he's not likely to be retained following this season. Even at that, $100M is still far more than $7.8M. Giants - Eli Manning just signed a $96M contract. Their highest paid offensive lineman is LT David Diehl (at least until they have to give Chris Snee a new deal--he'll probably get one worth $7M a year I'm guessing), who signed a 6-year, $33M extension following the 2007 season (a season in which--according to Stats, Inc.--he gave up the most sacks in the NFL, and yet the Giants won the Superbowl...weird). Again, $96M is far, far more of an investment than $33M. Saints - Drew Brees signed a 6-year, $60M deal with New Orleans in 2007. Their highest paid lineman is LT Jammal Brown, who's playing on his rookie deal worth around $14M over 5 years. They probably won't re-sign him when it expires, considering that his backup (Jermon Bushrod) has been starting since week 1 and has played fine in his absence. Even so, $60M is a significantly larger sum than $14M. Vikings - Brett Favre's deal is worth $12M per year. Steve Hutchinson, the team's highest paid offensive lineman, signed a 7-year, $49M deal following the 2006 season. They also pay Bryant McKinnie about $5M per year. So finally, we've found one that's close. I guess, for your part, 1 out of 6 isn't bad, right? Ok, I'm tired of beating up on your argument now. So feel free to sell me another line of bull, and when I have time I'll come back and prove that wrong too. Either that, or you can start responding to even one, just one, of the many facts that prove your point wrong. Sound fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Who are you discrediting here? I am discrediting the notion that a quarterback, even if he is great, can step in and win with a bad offensive line. Guys like Archie Manning and Steve Young would agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 So what you're saying is that, despite all of the evidence to the contrary--which I have presented several times in this very thread (on this very page no less)--you're going to stick to that faulty line of logic? Here it is, one last time, in simple English: There are plenty of statistics (i.e. offensive rankings), game results (i.e. Superbowl victories), and current performance indicators (i.e. YPC, YPA) that completely disprove the point you continuously try to make, and yet you argue without providing any relevant facts or reason. Your belligerence in the face of being (quite literally) proven wrong about needing a good offensive line for a QB (or an offense, for that matter) to succeed is astounding. The summation of your points has been: - Well other QBs scramble and Trent doesn't - Jim Kelly used to talk up his offensive linemen and take them to dinner - Owners of the better teams spend all their money on the offensive line Since I've already debunked the first 2, I'll now rip the third point to shreds: Let's start with this: who are the "better teams in the league"? How about: Colts, Patriots, Steelers, Giants, and this year the Saints and Vikings. So let's now move to the question of "where do they spend the greatest amount of money"? Colts - Peyton Manning has a $100M+ contract, and will likely get a new one in the next year or so that pays him $50M in guaranteed money. By contrast, their highest paid offensive lineman is C Jeff Saturday, who makes less than Geoff Hangartner ($3.7M vs. $4M). They start a rookie free agent at left tackle over former 2nd round pick Tony Ugoh. Patriots - Tom Brady has a $100M+ contract. Their highest paid offensive lineman is LT Matt Light, who signed a 3-year extension worth $18M back in 2007. I know you can do the math, but (just for emphasis) $100M is far greater than $18M. Steelers - Ben Roethlisberger has a $100M+ contract. Their highest paid offensive lineman is LT Max Starks, who is playing for the Transition tag value of $7.8M. Since their o-line is one of the worst in the NFL in pass protection, and is mediocre at best in run blocking, he's not likely to be retained following this season. Even at that, $100M is still far more than $7.8M. Giants - Eli Manning just signed a $96M contract. Their highest paid offensive lineman is LT David Diehl (at least until they have to give Chris Snee a new deal--he'll probably get one worth $7M a year I'm guessing), who signed a 6-year, $33M extension following the 2007 season (a season in which--according to Stats, Inc.--he gave up the most sacks in the NFL, and yet the Giants won the Superbowl...weird). Again, $96M is far, far more of an investment than $33M. Saints - Drew Brees signed a 6-year, $60M deal with New Orleans in 2007. Their highest paid lineman is LT Jammal Brown, who's playing on his rookie deal worth around $14M over 5 years. They probably won't re-sign him when it expires, considering that his backup (Jermon Bushrod) has been starting since week 1 and has played fine in his absence. Even so, $60M is a significantly larger sum than $14M. Vikings - Brett Favre's deal is worth $12M per year. Steve Hutchinson, the team's highest paid offensive lineman, signed a 7-year, $49M deal following the 2006 season. They also pay Bryant McKinnie about $5M per year. So finally, we've found one that's close. I guess, for your part, 1 out of 6 isn't bad, right? Ok, I'm tired of beating up on your argument now. So feel free to sell me another line of bull, and when I have time I'll come back and prove that wrong too. Either that, or you can start responding to even one, just one, of the many facts that prove your point wrong. Sound fair? +1 Your killing me Bandit and absolutely owning Dog that has no facts that prove his point. I do agree that offensive lines are important but a good QB can prove that an Oline is not needed. It can be the other way around but usually its the running back that benefits from killer Olines, ex. Emmitt Smith's entire career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 I am discrediting the notion that a quarterback, even if he is great, can step in and win with a bad offensive line. Guys like Archie Manning and Steve Young would agree. And--with all due respect, Bill--guys like Donovan McNabb, Ben Roethlisberger, and Brett Favre would disagree (20th, 25th, and 27th in the NFL in pass protection this year). You're a smart guy, Bill, and you know your football. I admit that I used to believe it was all about the OL as well, but the recent trends in the league forced me to reconsider. I think that if you look at the evidence, you might find that your perception about this issue would change. Some incontravertible facts to consider: - Tennessee is tied for 2nd in the NFL in sacks surrendered (with 6 total), and ranks 2nd in the NFL in yards per carry, yet they're 1-6 (and that one win came when they switched QBs). - Same goes for the Jets, who rank 14th in sacks surrendered (13 total), and 3rd in YPC, yet they couldn't beat Buffalo. There's no question it was a QB issue for them. I know that you say sack statistics are not representative (which I agree with for individual linemen, but for a team they're a key indicator), so how else are we to evaluate it? Statistics have no agenda, they are completely unbiased. If you look at it objectively, I honestly believe that the evidence is overwhelming that it's the QB, and not the offensive line. Honestly, how else could Pittsburgh have won the Superbowl last year giving up 49 sacks and running game that ranked in the bottom 3rd of the league? Now, you may not think that our QB can succeed without a great offensive line, and that's an entirely different statement, but to try to discredit the notion that a great QB can't succeed without a great line is--in my opinion--very misguided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 +1Your killing me Bandit and absolutely owning Dog that has no facts that prove his point. I do agree that offensive lines are important but a good QB can prove that an Oline is not needed. It can be the other way around but usually its the running back that benefits from killer Olines, ex. Emmitt Smith's entire career. Thanks, although I still feel bad about the abominable thread-jacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts