Rams & Chiefs Offensive Lines

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

He doesn’t need a Joe Thomas to block for him.  That’s obvious..and to the point.  

 

So your point is that a team that has drafted as poorly as the Browns have would have suddenly become a good team if they had just drafted AP?  And AP was pretty bad the previous 2 seasons.  He looked done. 

 

Oh and the Browns had Jamal Lewis in 2006 who rushed for 1,132 yards, and he ran for 1,304 (9 TD's each season) in 2007.  Didn't help them much.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Doc

[Prickly Pete]

4 hours ago, Doc said:

 

And yet last weekend they did.

 

Ok, I hunted down the drives from the Wildcard game...

 

 

Point out the great plays from the receivers? Show me some missed tackles and breaking aways? They are virtually all "pass caught, guy gets tackled". Mack has a handful of nice runs, but nothing really that notable. I mean, they were up by 21, you're bound to get a few nice runs.

 

I think you are wrong. 

[Doc]

Ah, so "great plays" are "missed tackles and breaking away"?  That's convenient.  Saw many big plays made by the receivers and good protection by the OL.  And the Texans have a stout DL and were at home.

[Prickly Pete]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

Ah, so "great plays" are "missed tackles and breaking away"?  That's convenient.  Saw many big plays made by the receivers and good protection by the OL.  And the Texans have a stout DL and were at home.

 

Weak. 

Playmakers catch the ball, and make things happen. They even keep a stat for it, ya know. It's called Yards After Catch.

Edited January 14, 2019 by OJ Tom

[Prickly Pete]

Here is the Chiefs Colts game...

 

 

Conveniently, we can see a second game where the Colts get ZERO (NONE) big plays from their WR's. One game was a win, where they got an early lead, and could get by mostly just eeking out 1st downs. The second game, they lost...they couldn't keep up.

 

Mack is the only Colts player in either game that had anything that I would consider a dynamic play. He had ONE in the Chiefs game (at 10.18). Mack has a string of nice runs there, but it's late in the game, and the Chiefs are essentially playing Prevent to stop long passes.

 

The Wr's can catch the ball, but EVERYTIME they are tackled almost immediately...IN BOTH GAMES. They can't get enough space, or can't break tackles...they are "Just Guys".

 

Now lets look at the Chiefs...

They had 5 big plays (most by receivers) where a guy caught the ball and turned it into a big play, or a running back made a big run out past the line of scrimmage...

 

0.36

0.50

1.47

4.17

12.06

 

These are the kind of plays you need to get to be a serious contender.

Edited January 14, 2019 by OJ Tom

[GunnerBill]

14 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Success at what.  Was Joe Thomas a success for the Browns?  Their O line was bad his whole career.  What was the point?

 

It wasn't actually. Around the turn of the decade the Browns were consistently fielding top 10 offensive lines when Thomas and Mack were in tandem. Now it is absolutely fair to say their offense and indeed their team still sucked but the line was often the best part of those teams.

[Doc]

8 hours ago, OJ Tom said:

 

Weak. 

Playmakers catch the ball, and make things happen. They even keep a stat for it, ya know. It's called Yards After Catch.

 

5 hours ago, OJ Tom said:

Here is the Chiefs Colts game...

 

 

Conveniently, we can see a second game where the Colts get ZERO (NONE) big plays from their WR's. One game was a win, where they got an early lead, and could get by mostly just eeking out 1st downs. The second game, they lost...they couldn't keep up.

 

Mack is the only Colts player in either game that had anything that I would consider a dynamic play. He had ONE in the Chiefs game (at 10.18). Mack has a string of nice runs there, but it's late in the game, and the Chiefs are essentially playing Prevent to stop long passes.

 

The Wr's can catch the ball, but EVERYTIME they are tackled almost immediately...IN BOTH GAMES. They can't get enough space, or can't break tackles...they are "Just Guys".

 

Now lets look at the Chiefs...

They had 5 big plays (most by receivers) where a guy caught the ball and turned it into a big play, or a running back made a big run out past the line of scrimmage...

 

0.36

0.50

1.47

4.17

12.06

 

These are the kind of plays you need to get to be a serious contender.

 

If you seriously want to say that Hilton and Ebron aren't playmakers, there's nothing more to discuss.  The Colts' OL played well against the Texans and didn't against the Chefs.  Furthermore, it looked to me like Luck was either fatigued, injured or rattled during the Chefs game as his passes were off-target.

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

 

If you seriously want to say that Hilton and Ebron aren't playmakers, there's nothing more to discuss.  The Colts' OL played well against the Texans and didn't against the Chefs.  Furthermore, it looked to me like Luck was either fatigued, injured or rattled during the Chefs game as his passes were off-target.

 

Hilton didn't look right to me on Saturday. I think trying to pinpoint what went wrong for the Colts on Saturday is a bit of a forlorn exercise. They were just bad across the board. Their offense never seemed to click at all. The playmakers were struggling to separate, the line was struggling to hold its blocks and Luck was struggling to make quick decisions.

[Captain_Quint]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Hilton didn't look right to me on Saturday. I think trying to pinpoint what went wrong for the Colts on Saturday is a bit of a forlorn exercise. They were just bad across the board. Their offense never seemed to click at all. The playmakers were struggling to separate, the line was struggling to hold its blocks and Luck was struggling to make quick decisions.

I think the Chiefs defense really stepped it up yesterday too. Not surprisingly, so did the Pats. After poor seasons, they both shined yesterday. 

 

It'll be interesting if either or both can sustain that next week. 

 

And you're right about Hilton. The announcer mentioned that he was injured but I didnt catch what was wrong with him. 

[JohnC]

12 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

He doesn’t need a Joe Thomas to block for him.  That’s obvious..and to the point.  

Your logic is difficult to comprehend. The Browns organization has been renowned for its historical dysfunction. Bad ownership, front office and coaching. It makes a first round draft selection of a LT who turns out to be all-pro for most of his career. You then criticize that selection and consider it a mistake because that singular  pick didn't alter the course of its ignominious history. That makes little sense. This was a franchise that made bad qb decisions and for the most part exhibited ineptitude on a grand scale. So in your unique line of reasoning you conclude that the player who turned out to be exceptional was a bad pick. That makes no sense. 

[MrEpsYtown]

38 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Hilton didn't look right to me on Saturday. I think trying to pinpoint what went wrong for the Colts on Saturday is a bit of a forlorn exercise. They were just bad across the board. Their offense never seemed to click at all. The playmakers were struggling to separate, the line was struggling to hold its blocks and Luck was struggling to make quick decisions.

 

Agreed. I think Hilton really struggled with the conditions. I know it's an even playing field and all, but he is a quick out of his breaks kind of guy, and I think the field conditions really hurt him. He's also had  an ankle injury all year. But yeah across the board they were bead. Even Quentin Nelson was missing blocks. Glowinski looked terrible. 

[GunnerBill]

Just now, MrEpsYtown said:

 

Agreed. I think Hilton really struggled with the conditions. I know it's an even playing field and all, but he is a quick out of his breaks kind of guy, and I think the field conditions really hurt him. He's also had  an ankle injury all year. But yeah across the board they were bead. Even Quentin Nelson was missing blocks. Glowinski looked terrible. 

 

I'm not really a Glowinski guy. I think he is the kind of guy you can hide in a good offensive line, which the Colts have been for much of the year. There is a reason he was cut from a Seahawks team with a desperate offensive line need - he just isn't that good. Most good offensive lines have one or two of those guys on there somewhere. Very rare that you have offensive lines with dominant players at all five spots.... the Steelers have been pretty close the last couple of years and the Cowboys had it for a year or two there as well.... but you don't need five all-pros. I think Glowinski is a major candidate to get overpaid this offseason. I hope the Bills give him a wide pass.

[colin]

all players and coaches have the potential to make each other better on a good unit, as has been said in this thread.  play makers and a good qb make the d back off, running game means the LBs will bite on play action and stuff the box, etc.

 

the things that stood out to me this weekend:

 

Rest:  the bye teams all won, and were all fresh.  They all basically lined up and smashed the other team on O, controlling the game and running the ball.  if NO was at philly who was fresh i think they run the ball on them (being home helps too obv) and win.

 

Oline as a unit: having a top single OL (like the colts, or the browns when thomas was there) is great, but the rams, KC, and especially NE play great OL as a unit.  they all move around and get on their blocks so effectively.  NE makes me sick, but they really are just a better team than most.  They have lil WRs and RBs running behind a convoy of maulers all the time.  that wears out the D and sets up broken tackles and turns 3 yard plays into 7 yard plays, which is basically all NE does.

 

we need some play makers, but i think foster and JA are so dynamic that we don't need them as much as we need a solid well coached tackle to tackle Oline, which would be the first we've had in a long long time.

[TheBeaneBandit]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

I'm not really a Glowinski guy. I think he is the kind of guy you can hide in a good offensive line, which the Colts have been for much of the year. There is a reason he was cut from a Seahawks team with a desperate offensive line need - he just isn't that good. Most good offensive lines have one or two of those guys on there somewhere. Very rare that you have offensive lines with dominant players at all five spots.... the Steelers have been pretty close the last couple of years and the Cowboys had it for a year or two there as well.... but you don't need five all-pros. I think Glowinski is a major candidate to get overpaid this offseason. I hope the Bills give him a wide pass.

Me too. Go after a top guard Glowinski is a weak link of a good line who is now a free agent in a oline desparate league. I would def avoid him.

[Sweats]

The OLine isn’t the sexy pick in the draft, but it needs to be addressed early and often.

 

The Hood has made a long career out of non-sexy draft picks, but he picks for need and understands the trenches......OBD picks to put asses in the seats

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, colin said:

we don't need them as much as we need a solid well coached tackle to tackle Oline, which would be the first we've had in a long long time.

 

Think that is harsh on our 2015 and particularly 2016 lines which were very solid units. If we just got back to that level we would be in a really decent place.

[colin]

15 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Think that is harsh on our 2015 and particularly 2016 lines which were very solid units. If we just got back to that level we would be in a really decent place.

 

they were decent, but that was 3 really good players and a couple meh players, and they'd get overwhelmed from time to time.  I'm all for talent, but i want solid play by the unit all around.  THAT, we haven't had since like the 90s

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, colin said:

 

they were decent, but that was 3 really good players and a couple meh players, and they'd get overwhelmed from time to time.  I'm all for talent, but i want solid play by the unit all around.  THAT, we haven't had since like the 90s

 

That is very hard to find. I think we are much more likely to get the 2016 sort of line which was two borderline elite at their positions in Cordy and Richie, one good player in Wood, a solid guy in Miller (who had his best year) and then a weaker link who you can gameplan around in Mills.

[BuffalothruMyVeins]

19 hours ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

hard to be a good coach with bum players

 

 

The way I remember it, he wasnt really fired because he was a bad coach, or had bad players, he was fired as part of both a housecleaning after Rex, and also because of that incident where he and his son beat up some guys for trying to steal their chairs in their back yard... something like that... didn't come across as good on their part.

He had good players during his time here, though- probably one of the best OLs in the last 20 years. Glenn was a good LT, Incognito and Wood were Pro Bowl level, Miller had his best year under him, and even Mills... uhm... well, the other 4 guys were good!

[Mr. WEO]

13 hours ago, Doc said:

 

So your point is that a team that has drafted as poorly as the Browns have would have suddenly become a good team if they had just drafted AP?  And AP was pretty bad the previous 2 seasons.  He looked done. 

 

Oh and the Browns had Jamal Lewis in 2006 who rushed for 1,132 yards, and he ran for 1,304 (9 TD's each season) in 2007.  Didn't help them much.

 

Lewis was averaging over 1000 yards per (over 5 seasons) when he showed up to Cleveland.  Joe T didn't make him a 1000 yrd rusher.  And he was done in less than 3 seasons in Cleveland. 

 

And 9 years after Lewis left the league, AP is still a 1000 yards rusher....and that was running behind Tarvares Jackson, Gus Frerotte, Favre, Ponder, Cassel, and Teddy Bridgewater!  So, yeah, my point is that Cleveland's offense would have been far better off with AP than Joe Thomas--is that even a serious question?

 

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It wasn't actually. Around the turn of the decade the Browns were consistently fielding top 10 offensive lines when Thomas and Mack were in tandem. Now it is absolutely fair to say their offense and indeed their team still sucked but the line was often the best part of those teams.

 

When Thomas was a rookie, that line allowed 19 sacks.  That number would balloon to 39, 49, 53 and 66 over the next 10 seasons.

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Your logic is difficult to comprehend. The Browns organization has been renowned for its historical dysfunction. Bad ownership, front office and coaching. It makes a first round draft selection of a LT who turns out to be all-pro for most of his career. You then criticize that selection and consider it a mistake because that singular  pick didn't alter the course of its ignominious history. That makes little sense. This was a franchise that made bad qb decisions and for the most part exhibited ineptitude on a grand scale. So in your unique line of reasoning you conclude that the player who turned out to be exceptional was a bad pick. That makes no sense. 

 

 

It shouldn't be that  hard to understand.  They picked a player who had a nice career....but one  that had no impact whatsoever on the fortunes of the offense (see above).  They passed on a player that absolutely would have.  Simple.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Mr. WEO