Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

cooperbh · 01-17-2011, 01:26 AM

(01-17-2011 12:16 AM)Beef Wrote: http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_...rder/false

In case you didn't know, our O-line gave up the 3rd fewest sacks in the entire league while also having the 12th best team rushing & 3rd overall rushing RB, and was by far the least penalized O-line in the league.

When you're only two-dimensional (dink-n-dunk passing + vanilla power running), the opposing defense has an easy job of scheming against you. There is absolutely ZERO question that we were the most blitzed against offense by a ridiculous margin. Stacking 7-8 in the box & rushing 6-7 was easily 70% of the play calls against us. And yet, our O-line only allowed 23 sacks the entire regular season, which again is 3rd fewest in the league.

If we were more than just two-dimensional & had more than just ONE player who was a YAC & deep threat, we wouldn't have seen half as many of those blitzes & stacking of the box. And as a result, Ryan would have had significantly more time much more often to sit in the pocket & wait for the down-field routes to finish. This didn't happen though because we don't have the personel for it.

Our O-line played ridiculously well considering that's the case.

Oh, I thought the lack of sacks was primarily due to Ryan's well-known penchant for geting rid of the ball quickly, as well as a scheme workaround (bringing in Svitek as an extra blocking TE) employed midway through the season to help alleviate the constant pressure Ryan was seeing up to that point. Good to know it's actually because we are loaded with elite talent along the O-line.

I assume you did an in-depth time-to-throw breakdown like Tandy did that shows that Ryan actually gets a lot more than the two seconds of clean pocket time that her research determined he got on average. No way would you have pulled your figures - like the "70% of the play calls," number, for instance - completely out of your ass.

Two seconds. Hmmm. How long does it take an NFL receiver to run 40 yards down a football field again?

cooperbh · 01-17-2011, 01:31 AM

(01-17-2011 12:34 AM)cnasty Wrote: I'm just curious as to how many screen passes we threw all year??? Anybody? Anybody?

Screen passes take time to develop, along with offensive linemen athletic enough to get down the field to lead the convoy - two things this team is severely lacking in.

juraitwaluzka · 01-17-2011, 01:50 AM

(01-17-2011 01:26 AM)cooperbh Wrote: Oh, I thought the lack of sacks was primarily due to Ryan's well-known penchant for geting rid of the ball quickly, as well as a scheme workaround (bringing in Svitek as an extra blocking TE) employed midway through the season to help alleviate the constant pressure Ryan was seeing up to that point. Good to know it's actually because we are loaded with elite talent along the O-line.

I assume you did an in-depth time-to-throw breakdown like Tandy did that shows that Ryan actually gets a lot more than the two seconds of clean pocket time that her research determined he got on average. No way would you have pulled your figures - like the "70% of the play calls," number, for instance - completely out of your ass.

Two seconds. Hmmm. How long does it take an NFL receiver to run 40 yards down a football field again?

Exactly, thank you!

Beef · 01-17-2011, 01:55 AM

(01-17-2011 01:26 AM)cooperbh Wrote: Oh, I thought the lack of sacks was primarily due to Ryan's well-known penchant for geting rid of the ball quickly, as well as a scheme workaround (bringing in Svitek as an extra blocking TE) employed midway through the season to help alleviate the constant pressure Ryan was seeing up to that point. Good to know it's actually because we are loaded with elite talent along the O-line.

I assume you did an in-depth time-to-throw breakdown like Tandy did that shows that Ryan actually gets a lot more than the two seconds of clean pocket time that her research determined he got on average. No way would you have pulled your figures - like the "70% of the play calls," number, for instance - completely out of your ass.

Two seconds. Hmmm. How long does it take an NFL receiver to run 40 yards down a football field again?

Umm, did you not read what I wrote or did you choose to just not comprehend it so you could go all e-tough on someone?

Are you saying you have evidence to the contrary that defenses didn't blitz on us much? If so, let's see it.

I watched every game. I saw 6 rushers on us no less than 2/3rd's of virtually every game our offense was on the field. Hell, the 1st game of the season, Steelers stacked 8 in the box almost the entire game.

So what does Ryan's release have to do with that? If our O-line is defending droves of blitzes & helping our running game be extremely productive vs. overstacking, what evidence do you have to confirm your claim that they suck?

You do realize we won 13 games with this supposed horrible O-line, right?

MilleniumFalcon · 01-17-2011, 01:57 AM

(01-17-2011 01:26 AM)cooperbh Wrote: Oh, I thought the lack of sacks was primarily due to Ryan's well-known penchant for geting rid of the ball quickly, as well as a scheme workaround (bringing in Svitek as an extra blocking TE) employed midway through the season to help alleviate the constant pressure Ryan was seeing up to that point. Good to know it's actually because we are loaded with elite talent along the O-line.

I assume you did an in-depth time-to-throw breakdown like Tandy did that shows that Ryan actually gets a lot more than the two seconds of clean pocket time that her research determined he got on average. No way would you have pulled your figures - like the "70% of the play calls," number, for instance - completely out of your ass.

Two seconds. Hmmm. How long does it take an NFL receiver to run 40 yards down a football field again?

Even if we had an elite o-line giving Ryan all day to throw, when the defenses roll coverage towards Roddy White, none of the other WR's can consistently win their matchups and get open. It's a priority to get a speed WR that can stretch the field and have safeties worry about being beat deep. Also a speed back that can catch the ball, our offense is so limited... we can take it to the next level with a few players.

juraitwaluzka · 01-17-2011, 01:59 AM

I don't think they suck, but the numbers don't lie. Unless we sign some receivers who run the 40 in 2.0 seconds if Matt has to release the ball in under 2 seconds it kinda makes it hard to throw deep a lot. You can't do what you can't do.

**Radical** · 01-17-2011, 01:59 AM

Our line is solid, but it isn't talented and isn't great at pass protection or moving a pile. We get by on the line with solid fundamentals and attitude more than anything.

For a dome team, we lack speed on offense. Roddy White is the only real game changer we have on offense at the skill positions. I said it earlier and I'll say it again. You want to see a dynamic offense that lights up the score board, here's what we'll need.

A real #2 WR. Cut this "he's our 3rd option" bullshit and get a WR that is good enough to be the #2 option. Someone else to really stretch the defense, not use body positioning to run skinny posts or corner routes. We don't have the talent at WR to run 4-5 WR sets. We have a big body possession receiver who might as well be 5"10 in Jenkins, we have an up and down slot receiver at #3 that is too much of an unknown to count on, an ancient possession receiver, and a special teams maven.

A talented offensive line that can get things done. Sam Baker sucks flat out, Justin Blalock is mediocre, McClure is solid but isn't moving any piles or taking on any 3-4 NTs, Dahl is alright but mediocre at pass protection, and Clabo is probably the only player of the entire bunch of I would call real good. There's no fucking route design or play call in the world that will work if you can't have your front 5 get a little bit of push in short yardage situations or pass block without the help of additional linemen or tight ends.

A RB to go with Turner that can beat a defense from sideline to sideline. Turner is a battering ram, and is up there in age. He doesn't catch passes, he isn't going to outrun you from sideline to sideline. Get a real RB to go with him instead of some pussy scatback that breaks in half if you run him between the tackles or if he gets hit too hard. A speed back with good hands that can break some tackles.

You do these three things, and this offense opens up. We are one of the slowest offenses in the NFL, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the play calling or route design.

And ANOTHER THING. Quit pushing the bullshit that Mularkey has been ran off from every other team in the NFL he's gone too. It is a flat out lie. He ran a good offense with Pittsburgh for 3 years with some garbage at QB before he left to become the Bills HC, he resigned after the fucked up management issues they had, had a bad year under Nick Saban in Miami because both the starting QB and RB went down on an offense that lacked talent, and Cam Cameron came in to run his offense so Mularkey no longer had a purpose any more. Just because you hate the guy and don't know enough about how an offense works to think the guy is the Satan that blights sin upon our "Pro Bowl" offense doesn't mean you have to make shit up about him.

**Radical** · 01-17-2011, 02:01 AM

(01-17-2011 01:31 AM)cooperbh Wrote: Screen passes take time to develop, along with offensive linemen athletic enough to get down the field to lead the convoy - two things this team is severely lacking in.

Was stated by a coach during our 09 offseason. Not their strength, and they don't work well laterally or in open space.

Beef · 01-17-2011, 02:01 AM

(01-17-2011 01:50 AM)juraitwaluzka Wrote: Exactly, thank you!

There's no doubt in my mind that if teams had to defend against more receiving threats & a speed-back, that they would have been forced to spread out significantly more & this would of course reduced the pressure some & given Ryan more time to throw.

This is what other teams that have prolific offenses full of weapons do, so it's not like I even have to justify logic here. The evidence is already present. We're missing pieces in the receiving corps & backfield that would make this possible.

juraitwaluzka · 01-17-2011, 02:04 AM

(01-17-2011 02:01 AM)Beef Wrote: There's no doubt in my mind that if teams had to defend against more receiving threats & a speed-back, that they would have been forced to spread out significantly more & this would of course reduced the pressure some & given Ryan more time to throw.

This is what other teams that have prolific offenses full of weapons do, so it's not like I even have to justify logic here. The evidence is already present. We're missing pieces in the receiving corps & backfield that would make this possible.

That's a good thing too, we certainly need to upgrade WRs and have an alternative/speed RB.