Quote
roman18
ou have said in the past that it was injuries to our O-Line that caused our problems....then you point out teams that have not have great O-Lines.....Where do you really stand on the point of a good O-Line?
IMO a good/great O-Line makes you a yearly team to the ring......our line was never in the class of a real O-Line since the ED days and before.......
For our QB to really step forward....for our RB group to really step forward...for our defense to really show strength.....for this team to become a playoff scaring team to the league this O-Line needs to improve. (TG had major problems himself at times...but IMO that was just by way of frustration of the line being blown up time and again)
It may not need so much to come from outside of the team....it may just need a O-Line coach who can see what we have, go towards their strength..pick a good center who has an a** to keep his spot...get the line to actually move forward in plays.....
IMO do this and the QB will have time...the RB's will have holes....and the WR's will have time to run routes....
IMO our most important choice is the O-Line coach.....over anyone else....this O-Line is not in good mental spot......Not so much bad ability area....just bad mental spot.....
I think you're taking me as saying things I'm not only not saying, I don't believe them. In fact in general I agree with a lot of the things YOU say.
Okay a step at a time cause there's a lot of short-circuits here.
First. Yes extensive injuries to an OL will usually hurt the offense. (Though I wasn't talking about that here.) However, that comes with a qualification. Sometimes (and it's nowhere near common) there are a few qbs who can compensate for a damaged OL. Among those IMO are Brady, Wilson, and BR. More often than not though a damaged OL will bring a good qb down with it. We know that from Bulger's experience from 2007-2009, if nothing else.
So there's that. Which though had nothing to do with what I said in this thread. A relatively healthy, but basically average OL, according to the way I was discussing it, is not the same as an extensively injured OL. An extensively injured OL does not just subtract talent, it subtracts unit cohesion and diminishes things like communication and timing. So the point I was making in the post you respond to here just didn't raise the OL injuries issue. I was just assuming we were discussing basic, relatively healthy OLs.
Second. My point in this thread was only to say that it is not always true that teams with top OLs go far in the playoffs. Why did I say that? Only because those are the facts. It was just simply a factual issue. I said it because it was a case of "the facts in this case are not entirely X, they are more like Y." There was no OTHER unstated reason for saying it.
Third. Another thing is you seem to assume (I think?) is that I am advocating something here. No. What I said had nothing whatsoever to do with me personally advocating anything. It's just a fact that it is not always the case that the 4 finalists will all have top OLs.
Fourth. More on that, In fact think back. The Rams had among the best OLs in league history from the late 70s through to the mid 80s. Lookiing just at the 80s, in that period, while they had one of the best OLs in the history of the game, they went to the final 4 just twice. Twice from 80-89. Using PFF, this year among the teams with top OLs that didn't go anywhere, there's the Titans (1st), Oakland (4th), Washington (7th), Philadelphia (8th), Baltimore (9th), Buffalo (11th), and New Orleans (12th). Well only 4 of the top OL teams CAN go the final 4, but in this case, 4 of the 7 teams I just listed didn;'t even break 8-8.
Okay. in fact, no, it is not the case that a top OL is a guarantee of overall success. Dallas had a top OL last year too and they didn;t go anywhere. They obviously needed more than the OL. The last couple of years, Seattle has had average at best OLs and they obviously DID go somewhere. So the formula that teams with top OLs usually go far is just not accurate. Again I am not advocating anything. That's just the facts.
Okay.
Just looking at the Rams---they are NOT one of the rare teams whose qb can compensate for either a bad though healthy OL OR an extensively injury damaged OL. There's no doubt that the Rams OL has to improve for Goff to improve. I dont disagree with that and did not say anything in this thread that would dispute that.
(Though now that it has come up, I don't agree with the idea that the problems with the running game reduced all to the OL. I think the running game had multiple issues, not just the OL.)
.
.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2017 12:16PM by zn.
