Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


We've got big trouble on the OL.

Redskins Locker Room


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-01-2012, 10:58 AM   #166
Playmaker
 
Alvin Walton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 4,427
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.

The news may be good but I dont trust this guy.
How many weeks till hes a gimp all over again?
__________________
REDSKINS FAN SINCE 1968
Alvin Walton is offline  

Advertisements
Old 08-01-2012, 11:00 AM   #167
Registered User
 
RGIII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 626
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.

The team has few options since the talent OT talent pool was so thin and the $18M cap penalty hit. Would fans be happy for the team to trade for Otah? Of course not. They have to hold on to Jamaal for the duration of season. Maybe it's best for him to be the swing guy while Polumbus gets the workload now.
RGIII is offline  
Old 08-01-2012, 11:03 AM   #168
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 11,004
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
Yes. In camp, they appeared to have struggled. Heading into the offseason, however, it appeared that they were more than capable of handling a starting assignment. So ... going into the offseason, we had two guys (Polumbo, Smith) who appearred ready to be solid contributors with starting potential. Add in that,during the offseason, it appeared Brown was doing better.

So, where was the limitation on our offense last year? Let's take a look at WR's. They were pedestrian at best last year (when Gaffney is your leading WR, calling the unit pedestrian should be considered a complement). Hankerson looked good but had an injury concern and hadn't shown himself to be a consistent threat. Moss underperformed and, as I understand, it was almost off the team. After Gaffney, the leading receivers are a TE (Davis, 58 - who is facing a one year suspension for his next positive test) and a rookie RB (Helu, 49 Rec.).

A reminder about our WR corps last year:
Gaffney: 69 Rec.
Moss: 46 Rec.
Stallworth: 22 rec.
Hankerson: 13
Austin: 12
Armstrong: 7
Banks: 6
Paul: 2

You talk about limiting an offense -- our WR corp limited the offense. Rex or no Rex. None of the WR's on the roster demonstrated that they were YAC guys, much less game breakers. It was a bunch of chain movers at best. What's the point of taking a 5 and 7 step drops when your top two WR's average 13.9/catch (Gaffney, 41st in the NFL last year) and 12.7/catch (Moss, 67th in the NFL)? Our highest yards/catch guy last year? Mike Sellers (15.0/catch). If that is not a brutal idictment of the WR's, I am out.

Our QB situation - well, we know where that stood.

In comparison to those two positions, and playing our reserves, our line performed competently even with a statue like Rex back there.

The FO made some value judgments, someone earlier stated that Bruce thought next year's tackle quality will be much higher. Also, as SS intimated, it's not like on day one of free agency the choice was Garcon or Winston. No, it was Garcon or same old, same old. Winston came along after we addressed the WR position. Again, SS indicated they went after tackles but were priced out of the market between the cap penalty and the decision to prioritize the much more glaring need at WR.

As to Cousins, LeRibeus, over a RT in the 3rd or 4th - as Matty said, drafting for need gets you in trouble. I liked the Cousins pick, it was the right thing given our need to develop a back up at the game's most important position. If the step down in talent from starter to back-up is a concern at RT, a similar step down at QB is the end of a season (see Chicago last year). Grossman is not and never will be the long term answer at number two, QB's take time to develop. Again, based on their in-game performance, we had 2 and, hopefully, 3 guys (Brown being the third) who, based on their in-game performance, could competently cover the RT position. In that case, you trust your grades and go with the BPA.

The line is a concern. Should the FO made it a higher priority in the offseason? Maybe, but, given the other glaring needs that were bigger limitations on the offense, they certainly weren't idiots for not making it the top priority after RGIII. It was a reasonable decision based on the prior season's performance at the WR, QB and OL positions.

Quite frankly ... I am much, much more concerned with the defensive secondary than I am with the RT position.
Joe, you are as eloquent and thoughtful here as always. I agree with almost everything you said.

IMHO I have less confidence in Cousins than you. I like the idea of two young QB's but personally I have never thought that Cousins was our second guy. I see Cousins developing into Wrecks Jr at best.

If we had taken Bobby Massie instead of Cousins we would have more OT depth right now. And I argue now, as I did at draft time, that Massie is just a better player. To me Massie matched BPA as well as need so that's who we should have taken IMO.

That said, Massie would not be ready to start now, so he would not be a resolution to our current conundrum at RT.

Finally, I agree that our secondary is a huge concern but this thread is about the OL so that's why I belabor these points here.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is offline  
Old 08-01-2012, 11:06 AM   #169
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,962
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.

Why would Massie be a better choice than Cousins if he couldn't contribute now?
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline  
Old 08-01-2012, 11:08 AM   #170
The Starter
 
30gut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,099
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
You talk about limiting an offense -- our WR corp limited the offense. Rex or no Rex. None of the WR's on the roster demonstrated that they were YAC guys, much less game breakers. It was a bunch of chain movers at best. What's the point of taking a 5 and 7 step drops when your top two WR's average 13.9/catch (Gaffney, 41st in the NFL last year) and 12.7/catch (Moss, 67th in the NFL)? Our highest yards/catch guy last year? Mike Sellers (15.0/catch). If that is not a brutal idictment of the WR's, I am out.
If you're making an argument about improving the receiving options no one would disagree with you.
But, I think the more applicable question is which position RT or WR played at higher level/lower level?

Quote:
In comparison to those two positions, and playing our reserves, our line performed competently even with a statue like Rex back there.
There is a difference between assessment of a unit like the OL vs an assessment of the individual players.

Quote:
...but were priced out of the market between the cap penalty and the decision to prioritize the much more glaring need at WR.
This is the crux of the decision.
There seems to be the implication that there hands were tied.
When the reality is they made a choice.

Quote:
I liked the Cousins pick, it was the right thing given our need to develop a back up at the game's most important position.
I like Cousins as a prospect. But its a whole other discussion whether there was a need to develop a back-up from this draft. Cousins pick strikes me more as 'amassing talent rather then building a team'. (Bellichick IIRC)

Quote:
Again, based on their in-game performance, we had 2 and, hopefully, 3 guys (Brown being the third) who, based on their in-game performance, could competently cover the RT position.
We had 3 young players that showed they could come into a game and not vomit on themself.
They played well, given the situation they were thrust into.
But, that doesn't make them starting caliber they are still unknown quantities as long term starters.
They proved themselves to be solid depth anything beyond that is a hope.
Much like Jammal Brown playing better and staying healthy is a hope.


Quote:
Quite frankly ... I am much, much more concerned with the defensive secondary than I am with the RT position.
The safeties and nickelback are question marks heading into the season.
__________________
No longer were NFL coaches dealing inflexibly with spread [QBs] in ways that caused stunted development for players like [A. Smith and Vick] now, the idea is to bring what the quarterback can do, and what he should do, together as an organic whole
30gut is offline  
Old 08-01-2012, 11:20 AM   #171
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 11,004
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
Why would Massie be a better choice than Cousins if he couldn't contribute now?
Neither guy is going to contribute much right now, right? So to me the argument is a developmental one.

Down the road IMO (brilliant talent scout that I am ) I think Massie could develop into a very good starter at RT. AT worst he could provide quality depth. We could muddle through this year at RT but have Massie ready to start next year. In this scenario RT, in the long term, is solved.

Cousins to me was way too mistake-prone at MSU and I think he will continue to be mistake-prone as a pro. Others disagree but I personally (again with my seasoned brilliance) don't see Cousins ever developing into even a quality backup. This is why I say that the idea to have two young QB's is smart but IMO Cousins is not the second man.

Since Cousins is on our team I hope that he makes me eat huge helpings of crow but I am of little faith right now.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is offline  
Old 08-01-2012, 11:25 AM   #172
Registered User
 
RGIII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 626
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.

Keep in mind that the question marks along the OLs and DBs are about injuries, not the lack of depth (numbers).
RGIII is offline  
Old 08-01-2012, 11:25 AM   #173
The Starter
 
30gut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,099
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
That said, Massie would not be ready to start now, so he would not be a resolution to our current conundrum at RT.
But, keep in mind we are talking about matching and improving upon Jammal Brown's level of play.
Given that he hasn't been good, given that both Willie Smith and Tyler Polombus per PFF graded out ahead of Brown.
And given that a 3rd/4th round OT is arguably more talented then Willie Smith then its not out of the realm that a 3rd/4th round OT could match if not surpass Brown's level of play.

Unless Cousins wins the back-up job form Wrecks, which is unlikely, he won't even be in a position to play this year.
If Cousins does win the back-up job he still might not play.
And either way as much as I like to don the Burgundy and Gold glasses were not a Super Bowl contending team.
And imo the purpose of a competent back-up is to maintain the Super Bowl aspirations of a contending team.
__________________
No longer were NFL coaches dealing inflexibly with spread [QBs] in ways that caused stunted development for players like [A. Smith and Vick] now, the idea is to bring what the quarterback can do, and what he should do, together as an organic whole
30gut is offline  
Old 08-01-2012, 11:30 AM   #174
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,962
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
Neither guy is going to contribute much right now, right? So to me the argument is a developmental one.

Down the road IMO (brilliant talent scout that I am ) I think Massie could develop into a very good starter at RT. AT worst he could provide quality depth. We could muddle through this year at RT but have Massie ready to start next year. In this scenario RT, in the long term, is solved.

Cousins to me was way too mistake-prone at MSU and I think he will continue to be mistake-prone as a pro. Others disagree but I personally (again with my seasoned brilliance) don't see Cousins ever developing into even a quality backup. This is why I say that the idea to have two young QB's is smart but IMO Cousins is not the second man.

Since Cousins is on our team I hope that he makes me eat huge helpings of crow but I am of little faith right now.
Ok, got you. So you weren't against a QB per se. Just Cousins.

Could it be your judgment is clouded because you feel Cousins is an unnecessary roadblock on Crompton's path to greatness?
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline  
Old 08-01-2012, 11:31 AM   #175
The Starter
 
30gut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,099
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RGIII View Post
Keep in mind that the question marks along the OLs and DBs are about injuries, not the lack of depth (numbers).
And most important and impactful: quality of play.
__________________
No longer were NFL coaches dealing inflexibly with spread [QBs] in ways that caused stunted development for players like [A. Smith and Vick] now, the idea is to bring what the quarterback can do, and what he should do, together as an organic whole
30gut is offline  
Old 08-01-2012, 11:35 AM   #176
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 11,004
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 30gut View Post
But, keep in mind we are talking about matching and improving upon Jammal Brown's level of play.
Given that he hasn't been good, given that both Willie Smith and Tyler Polombus per PFF graded out ahead of Brown.
And given that a 3rd/4th round OT is arguably more talented then Willie Smith then its not out of the realm that a 3rd/4th round OT could match if not surpass Brown's level of play.

Unless Cousins wins the back-up job form Wrecks, which is unlikely, he won't even be in a position to play this year.
If Cousins does win the back-up job he still might not play.
And either way as much as I like to don the Burgundy and Gold glasses were not a Super Bowl contending team.
And imo the purpose of a competent back-up is to maintain the Super Bowl aspirations of a contending team.
Fair enough. I won't argue with that. I was just trying to be measured and conservative in my judgements.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is offline  
Old 08-01-2012, 11:37 AM   #177
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 11,004
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
Ok, got you. So you weren't against a QB per se. Just Cousins.

Could it be your judgment is clouded because you feel Cousins is an unnecessary roadblock on Crompton's path to greatness?
I think having a second young QB is a great idea.

And Crompton is that man! (Or Lindley, Harnisch, or Austin Davis IMO).
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is offline  
Old 08-01-2012, 11:48 AM   #178
The Starter
 
30gut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,099
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
I think having a second young QB is a great idea.....And Crompton is that man! (Or Lindley, Harnisch, or Austin Davis IMO).
I bet there are gonna be some good back-ups availbale in the fallout of the Browns, Seahawks and Dolphins training camps.
__________________
No longer were NFL coaches dealing inflexibly with spread [QBs] in ways that caused stunted development for players like [A. Smith and Vick] now, the idea is to bring what the quarterback can do, and what he should do, together as an organic whole
30gut is offline  
Old 08-01-2012, 11:51 AM   #179
The Starter
 
REDSKINS4ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Born and raised in D.C.....but I'm a New Yorker now....
Posts: 2,177
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.

People are assuming that Jonathan Crompton is the odd man out behind Cousins and and Grossman. But if Crompton ends up having a good camp and a greater preseason than Cousins and Grossman, then the coaches are going to have to evaluate him fairly
REDSKINS4ever is offline  
Old 08-01-2012, 12:01 PM   #180
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,190
Re: We've got big trouble on the OL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
Well, I guess I was right on Thursday/Friday. Brown's injury is not serious. Should actually be back quite soon. So says the latest intel
To add to this.


LL ‏@LL_HTTR247

Brown will be out for a couple weeks but will not go on IR. Looks like 5-8.



Between 5 and 8 weeks. I'm like a few people up here, you really can't count on Brown's health lasting at all.
__________________
"So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty
NC_Skins is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.36208 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25