[30gut]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

30gut:
Heyer and Williams were part of an offensive line that was overmatched in just about every game. Heyer is marginal against a pass rush and is less than satisfactory as a run blocker. Did you notice how often the Skins "ran left" on short yardage situations? I'm sure opposing defensive coordinators did. The reason they "ran left" is that Heyer as the RT is not any good at run blocking. He is an emergency player not a starter.

I agree and i said that Heyer was serviceable with the potential to become good. Heyer like i mentioned was playing with a bad knee, a knee injured to the point where he couldn't practice some weeks but he still went out there and battled. Logic tells me that a healthy Heyer will play better then he did last year and although he played hurt Heyer was better then Levi Jones who is considered to be a serviceable player by some (not by me).
I look back at the Heyer I saw at the end on 2008 when Heyer took over the LT spot for an injured Samuels. That is the potential i see for healthy Stephon Heyer not the injured plagued player with a different partner playing next to him almost every week. I think an underrated cause of the Redskins problems on OL was lack of cohesion itself if the same guy would have played RG the enitre season they would have been better then a different gut almost every week.

Williams' participation in games at right guard did not show any measured improvement in pass blocking by the OL and if he ever led a big run play downfield, I must have been distracted because I did not see it.

Well how are we gonna measure improvement? Because if look at the stats from football prospectus he performed better then most of the other OL on our team.
Just as you didn't see him make any pancakes i didn't see him getting pushed back like Rabach or missing many blocks. And don't forget we're talking about a UDFA rookie Center he's going to have a learning curve. Especially when he's playing a new position next to an injured RT and a less then stout Center.

I also never saw him "pancake" any DL in front of him. Sorry, this guy has a LOT of improving to do before he qualifies as a starter on a contending team. How would I describe his play at RG? Marginal

I don't think having 'pancake' blocks was a requirement for being serviceable.
And i agree that he does have a lot of improving to do before he become a starter on a contending team. But guess what? We're not a contending team.
And how different is marginal from serviceable?
How about this: Edwin was marginal talent with upside based on youth?
And i was projecting him at his natural position of Center where he would instantly be more stout then Rabach.

Rinehart has been here for two seasons. He has made it to the field on a Sunday how many times? Three? Four? Five at the most. Remember, he did not play at all in his rookie season... He was hurt this year and missed 6 games due to injury but that leaves 26 games in his career and he only found the field 3-5 times. Evidently, the coaches figured that he was lacking in skills most of the time that they put together their game plans.

How about his actual play? You mention a lot of points about his past but don't comment on how he played. And to my eye when he was in the game he played well. (And again the pro football prospectus support what my eye showed me) he was one of our better OL.

If Williams and Rinehart are "2 bright spots" on the Skins' OL, how come they were not in games very often? And when they were in games, how come the Skins didn't dominate people?

Well if you're paying attention our OL play wasn't very good Levi Jones was on of the worst LT in football and an injured Heyer was slighty better. Therein was the crux of our OL problems imo.
Imo, Rinehart and Williams were bright spots because they're our young OL and possible future and they held their own when they were pressed into duty for the 1st time.

The fact that he was not mentioned for any negatives does not mean he is a "bright spot" on the OL. When you out of the lineup because the coaches think there are better players than you are, you will never be mentioned for any "negatives"; that is not a "positive".

One of the common ways to know if an OL had at least a good game is if his name wasn't mentioned for a) getting beat b) holding or some other penalty.
So i'm gonna have to disagree when your an OL and your name isn't mentioned for something negative that in and of itself is a positive.

I read your original post carefully. I too have been saying that it will be next to impossible to reconstruct the entire OL in a single season. However, I simply cannot subscribe to the notion that the "OL began playing well once the rotating door stopped." The OL did not play well for most of the season; once Samuels and Thomas were hurt, it played poorly to marginally for the rest of the season. That poor-to-marginal play is a major reason the record was 4-12.

I agree for the most part except you're misquoting me i was refering to the interior OL not the enitre OL.

You cut out the beginning of my statement:

Originally Posted by 30gut

And the interior OL began playing well once the rotating door stopped.

And i want to mention imo a major reason for the seemingly improved play from the interior OL could certainly be given to Sherman Lewis playcalling.

I didn't think the interior OL was a big problem to begin with.
And i think we can agree that Doc wasn't a problem?
And although Rabach wasn't as stout as i would like he was much better then the OTs.
That leaves RG and once Montgomery stopped playing i thought the RG play improved.

I don't have a game-by-game breakdown of the interior OL.

But if you want which specific games i would say:
Falcons game where the backs rushed for 96 yards
Broncos backs rushed for 159 yard
Basically i thought the interior OL weeks 9-16 with the exception of the Giants game where the whole team looked disinterested other then Campbell and the Dallas game.

Look you have to build somewhere we can't have a completely new OL and you're not going to have big name players all across the OL but you have to start from somewhere and imo the place to start is the weakest spot. If these players make you feel umcomfortable its all the more reason to take an OT with the 1st so we have an honest chance at improving our OL next year. If it makes you feel better you can view our youth as the least horrible players on the OL who didn't crap themselves when their number was called.



But, believe good OL's are built over time with good coaching and playing time togother as a unit developing chemistry. Every player along the OL isn't going to be a big name player but the have to be able to play and these guys have shown signs and they're young.

HTTR!