PushthePile Posted November 21, 2009 Author Share Posted November 21, 2009 been an !@#$ in TE's defense, you have my apology my friend... No hard feelings buddy! Had rough week and been an !@#$ myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted November 21, 2009 Author Share Posted November 21, 2009 It's not impossible to be a great QB with a terrible line, but it is impossible to *LEARN* to be a great QB behind a terrible line. Young guys with bad lines is a game over scenario... A very good point. I have no argument with that. I believe that our o-line has put a huge dent into many of our young QBs learning process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Joe Montana in Kansas City is not even close to Joe Montana in San Fran. He was a shell of the player he once was. I took the time to look up the stats on "ole jim" in KC. It turns out he took far less sacks in KC as he did in San Fran, while posting some of his career high attempts. Kind of puts a damper on your theory. The truth is Montana was old and couldn't take the hits anymore. After reading this post it occurs to me that you remind me of another poster on this board that misses the point of a post and just continues to envision things your way while not understanding what someone else is trying to get through to you. He wasn't in any way shape or form a "shell" of his old self, he was in a completely different offense from the 49ers west coast system and still managed to take that team to the playoffs. The truth of the post was that at any given time, any player can have his career abruptly end from a severe concussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Have you seen the Pack play this year? Your analysis of the situation in Green Bay couldn't be more foolish. Undefeated? They only people who think Aaron Rodgers is a great QB play too much fantasy football- last week was the first time I have seen him play a strong game. He typically holds onto the ball far longer than he should, making an already bad O-line look worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Edwards play deteriorates because he is inconsistent. I mean if you really want to analyze the situation look no further than our 2 QBs. Edwards 21 sacks on 109 attempts Fitzpatrick 4 sacks on 77 attempts The proof is in the pudding Rabbit. Neither guy is good but at least one of them has the instincts to get rid of the freaking ball. A quality QB feels the pressure but continues to scan the field and releases at the last moment. Fitz can do one of those things and TE struggles with both. The o-line must be fighting harder for Fitz right? Did you also take the time to notice that as Fitz started the Bills were able to get Bell back in the lineup at tackle so the line was improved from the game when Edwards last played. You know, the game in which Edwards suffered another concussion, I suppose that is his fault also ... Go back and watch the Saints game, Edwards was literally running for his life every play. He had less then 2 seconds to get rid of the ball almost every play in the second half. As the line took more injuries and played poorly, so did the QB's play. The more he got hit, the more he had trouble getting rid of the ball. Did you ever watch film or read about soldiers in WW 1 and the actual term "shell shocked" It was because of the constant hammering and bombardment of the soldiers in the trenches and after a time they developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. "Symptoms varied widely in intensity, ranging from moderate panic attacks - which sometimes caused men to flee the battlefield: a crime which was invariably regarded as rank cowardice and which resulted in a court martial for desertion - to effective mental and physical paralysis. Sent home to recover many shell shock victims recovered over time, whereas many others continued to feel its effects for years afterwards. http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/shellshock.htm I'll reiterate and simply say, I'm glad Edwards is not starting. He needs to rest and recover from the concussion he suffered this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted November 22, 2009 Author Share Posted November 22, 2009 Did you also take the time to notice that as Fitz started the Bills were able to get Bell back in the lineup at tackle so the line was improved from the game when Edwards last played. You know, the game in which Edwards suffered another concussion, I suppose that is his fault also ... Go back and watch the Saints game, Edwards was literally running for his life every play. He had less then 2 seconds to get rid of the ball almost every play in the second half. As the line took more injuries and played poorly, so did the QB's play. The more he got hit, the more he had trouble getting rid of the ball. Did you ever watch film or read about soldiers in WW 1 and the actual term "shell shocked" It was because of the constant hammering and bombardment of the soldiers in the trenches and after a time they developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. "Symptoms varied widely in intensity, ranging from moderate panic attacks - which sometimes caused men to flee the battlefield: a crime which was invariably regarded as rank cowardice and which resulted in a court martial for desertion - to effective mental and physical paralysis. Sent home to recover many shell shock victims recovered over time, whereas many others continued to feel its effects for years afterwards. http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/shellshock.htm I'll reiterate and simply say, I'm glad Edwards is not starting. He needs to rest and recover from the concussion he suffered this season. Demetrius Bell? WW 1 shell shocked? These are your answers to the gigantic difference in how these two QBs handle pressure? TE is getting sacked close to 4 times as often as Fitz, behind that same o-line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 You're talking about going from Tom Brady to Matt Cassel. There is definitely a difference in talent there. That's kind of his point, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 You've got to be joking. If you really don't understand my point, then I'm afraid I'll need to simplify it for you: QB > OL That clear it up? I've proven it in post after post, with stat after stat, and example after example, and the only response you've ever had is to toss around a blanket statement: "it all starts up front". That's it. That's all you've ever refuted me with, and it doesn't hold water when you actually look at the facts. Then in this very post you trumpet that coaches like Shanahan and Cowher "all know you have to pass protect and run block in this league to be successful". Really? Is that why Cowher's 2005 Superbowl team allowed 32 sacks, 1 more than the Detroit Lions, who won 5 games that year? I know it wasn't Cowher's team, but how great was the OL when Pittsburgh's 2008 Superbowl team allowed 49 sacks (4th most in the NFL) and ranked 23rd in rushing? For that matter, run blocking must've been essential when the 2006-07 Colts ranked 18th in the NFL in rushing and won the Superbowl, right? Perhaps the OL was the main reason for the success of the 2003 Patriots, who ranked 27th in rushing and allowed 32 sacks en route to a Superbowl victory? There's always the 2002-03 Buccaneers to acknowledge as well, who won the Superbowl allowing 41 sacks (tied for 10th most in the NFL) and toting the league's 27th ranked rushing attack. How important was the offensive line when the 2001 Patriots won the Superbowl with the 13th ranked rushing attack and gave up 46 sacks (tied for 9th most in the league with--get this--Buffalo). Do you even pretend to research your points? I'll say it one last time, and then I'll move on: it's the QB, not the OL. Good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted November 22, 2009 Author Share Posted November 22, 2009 They only people who think Aaron Rodgers is a great QB play too much fantasy football- last week was the first time I have seen him play a strong game. He typically holds onto the ball far longer than he should, making an already bad O-line look worse. Rodgers- 2444 yards 17 tds 5 int 101.8 rating 229 rush yards with 3 rushing tds Manning- 2872 yards 20 tds 7 int 104.2 rating 0 rush yards Yeah he's having a terrible season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts