Quote:
Originally Posted by The Goat
Your argument pivots on Kurt Warner, probably the best "pressure" QB in the game today, working w/ the greatest WR in the game today and a 2nd WR easily in the top 5. In short...the argument doesn't hold water beyond the AZ Cards. Looking at top offenses you tend to see one resounding theme: a top notch offensive line. Brady has typically had one in NE. Peyton in Indy. Mini-Manning in NY has one of the best lines in the game and can be very good when he's on (such as he was at Fed Ex field last year). And finally, the most impressive QB in the game today IMHO, Drew Brees, has a very good (though maybe a bit underrated) line in front of him. I think anyone who watches the game play by play, seeing things develop, can easily recognize many of Zorn's plays fell apart before JC or any of his targets could be in a position to make something happen because the o-line crumbled. Zorn has basically said so himself.
|
My point is that becuse our offensive line was so dominant in the 1980s, fans (of a certain age I suppose) think the only path to success is to have an offensive line that pitches shutouts. It's an unrealistic expectation. The QB has to pick his teammates up. The Cardinals are one example. I think Roethlisberger does a nice job of buying time. Ditto Romo, though he lacks consistency. It's the only thing McNabb does really well, IMO. As for the Pats, their offensive line is good but you can't tell me that Brady and the receivers aren't the straaw that really stirs that drink.
As for Zorn, his devotion to the outmoded WCO will be his downfall. Campbell can't run it the way Hasselback did and if he wants to survive he needs to get over the notion that you can run the Redskins offense exactly like they did in Seattle.
On the bright side, our defense may be good enough to carry us while they figure out how to score more than ten points.