Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

caver50 · 01-17-2011, 11:27 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.

Yep, only 23 sacks, but keep in mind that Matt gets rid of the ball very fast, but he threw the least amount 20+ yard catches in the NFL, If I'am not mistaken. It's because he doesn't have time for the play to develop downfield. Everybody talks about why we don't go downfield more, well a lot of it has to do with how much time Ryan has throw.

With being said, I still believe we need one more good reciever and possibly two more lineman. There was a lot less holes for Turner to run through this year compaired to the last two years.

Beef · 01-17-2011, 11:58 AM

(01-17-2011 11:27 AM)caver50 Wrote: Yep, only 23 sacks, but keep in mind that Matt gets rid of the ball very fast, but he threw the least amount 20+ yard catches in the NFL, If I'am not mistaken. It's because he doesn't have time for the play to develop downfield. Everybody talks about why we don't go downfield more, well a lot of it has to do with how much time Ryan has throw.
With being said, I still believe we need one more good reciever and possibly two more lineman. There was a lot less holes for Turner to run through this year compaired to the last two years.

And the bolded part is where I agree, but not to the context you put it.

I think Ryan didn't have time to throw because opposing teams scheme their defenses specifically to stop our vanilla run game & dink-n-dunk short passing game simply because they all know we don't have reliable deep ball big-play & play-action screen play dimensions.

If you were a DC & you knew that your opponent ran a slow blowling-ball RB between the tackles 25-30x a game & the passing game consisted almost entirely of 5-10 yard out routes & dump passes over the middle in the second layer & then the only threat for anything deep is ONE guy, isn't it logically easier & a much higher percentage play to just overstack the box & crowd those two areas to defend?

Of course it is.

So with that knowledge, isn't it obvious our O-line, being forced to deal with overstacking, crowding, cheating up secondary, & tons of blitzes is going to have a hard time containing everyone when they're outnumbered so often? I mean when it's 5 v 7 or 6 v 8, someone is obviously going to be unblocked & in Ryan's face forcing him to throw quickly. And that doesn't mean our O-line sucks because each of them can't block 2 guys at the same time 2/3rd's of virtually every game. 1 v 1 sure, but 1 v 2 much of the time is not easy for anyone. And that's what we faced more than any other team in the league because we were only two-dimensional.

cooperbh · 01-17-2011, 02:17 PM

(01-17-2011 11:18 AM)Beef Wrote: Ok so that means you're still taking what I said out of context & creating an argument that has nothing to do with my point.

When I said that we're getting blitzed like crazy, something around 2/3rd's or more on average in virtually every game, isn't it a pretty damn good assumption that Ryan's not going to have tons of time to throw because of that?

In other words, I never argued that the line was "elite" & was giving him plenty of time to throw. You pulled that out of thin air for some reason.

What I did imply is that IF we had more weapons that forced defenses to spread out & not stack the box & blitz so much, then logic says he likely would have more time to wait for the deep routes to open up. I mean do the math... 5 blockers vs. 6-8 rushers is a mismatch & Ryan will have to throw quickly, which he does. But 5 blockers on 4-5 rushers, well I'm betting our O-line can do a hell of a lot better at giving Ryan time with those odds. And only a fool would disagree with that.

And the fact that even though we had the shit blitzed out of us & every team pretty much schemed to stop the run against us by cheating up & overstacking, I think our O-line still did a pretty decent job considering. I mean 3rd fewest sacks & one of the top rushing teams in those conditions, even though Ryan obviously plays a huge part with his quick release, still says to me that they weren't "horrible" like so many of you make them out to be. And on top of that, they were the least penalized O-line in the league by double-digits, which also really says a lot about their discipline & cohesiveness.

So no they may not be elite, but they're certainly not bad or even just average. They deserve some credit & respect.

And that's what I've been saying from the beginning & that's essentially the same thing Radical said. So he & I were on the same page & that's why I agreed with him. I have no idea how you turned that into me "changing my stance", unless you just have some agenda to bash me because I disagreed with you about something. Either way, you're just making stuff up left & right.

I've been saying all along that we're not fast enough & it's not just MM's play calling & route designs. I agreed with Swift somewhat too, but I clearly stated that I think MM's been forced to call those types of plays because he's figured out they are the most reliable for the personel we have, but I've said a bunch of times that I don't think that's his fault (which is what Radical was saying). I think we have other big plays in the playbook but that they're just not able to call them because we're missing the players (speed) to run them.

So no, I'm not "thrilled" (I would have said "completely satisfied") with the two-dimensional system we've run this season. I am, however "thrilled" we won 13 games with it because that speaks loads about our potential when we do actually have more big-play receivers & a speed-back to add more dimensions to our game plan. I have no problem with dink-n-dunk & power running between the tackles as long as it's not all we have. We were supposed to have Norwood, Meier, & HD to create those dimensions, but of course that didn't happen. And it just shows how great we can be if we still won 13 games without them.

Look, the point I was making couldn't have been more obvious. You suggested that the O-line was fine because we went 13-3. I simply used that same reasoning to "prove" that the entire "dink & dunk/vanilla power running" offense that you claimed needed to be opened up was fine because we went 13-3. Clearly, that is not case. Stop acting like I direct quoted you and then changed words around.

In case you still don't (or won't) get it: Our win/loss record doesn't determine whether we do or don't have a weakness in a certain area.

cooperbh · 01-17-2011, 02:48 PM

(01-17-2011 11:18 AM)Beef Wrote: When I said that we're getting blitzed like crazy, something around 2/3rd's or more on average in virtually every game, isn't it a pretty damn good assumption that Ryan's not going to have tons of time to throw because of that?

In other words, I never argued that the line was "elite" & was giving him plenty of time to throw. You pulled that out of thin air for some reason.

What I did imply is that IF we had more weapons that forced defenses to spread out & not stack the box & blitz so much, then logic says he likely would have more time to wait for the deep routes to open up. I mean do the math... 5 blockers vs. 6-8 rushers is a mismatch & Ryan will have to throw quickly, which he does. But 5 blockers on 4-5 rushers, well I'm betting our O-line can do a hell of a lot better at giving Ryan time with those odds. And only a fool would disagree with that.

OK, I'll do the math: LT + LG + C + RG + RT + TE + RB = 7 blockers. That still leaves 3 players that can be used solely to run pass patterns.

That means opposing defenses would have to rush 8 in order for there to be a mismatch. Are you saying that opposing defenses sent 8 rushers 70% of the time in 2010?

caver50 · 01-17-2011, 04:22 PM

(01-17-2011 11:58 AM)Beef Wrote: And the bolded part is where I agree, but not to the context you put it.

I think Ryan didn't have time to throw because opposing teams scheme their defenses specifically to stop our vanilla run game & dink-n-dunk short passing game simply because they all know we don't have reliable deep ball big-play & play-action screen play dimensions.

If you were a DC & you knew that your opponent ran a slow blowling-ball RB between the tackles 25-30x a game & the passing game consisted almost entirely of 5-10 yard out routes & dump passes over the middle in the second layer & then the only threat for anything deep is ONE guy, isn't it logically easier & a much higher percentage play to just overstack the box & crowd those two areas to defend?

Of course it is.

So with that knowledge, isn't it obvious our O-line, being forced to deal with overstacking, crowding, cheating up secondary, & tons of blitzes is going to have a hard time containing everyone when they're outnumbered so often? I mean when it's 5 v 7 or 6 v 8, someone is obviously going to be unblocked & in Ryan's face forcing him to throw quickly. And that doesn't mean our O-line sucks because each of them can't block 2 guys at the same time 2/3rd's of virtually every game. 1 v 1 sure, but 1 v 2 much of the time is not easy for anyone. And that's what we faced more than any other team in the league because we were only two-dimensional.

Turner doesn't have the speed to get outside nor can he catch the ball, so as long as he carries the ball you could expect much the same. Ofcourse we need a speed back which we sorely missed, as I think we can all agree on that. Right now, any stacking thats done is a great lack of respect for our backfield because they only have one runner to fear. I'am just guessing, but I bet we threw less screens than any team in football. By the way, I don't expect Norwood back next year. A good passer catcher out of the backfield with speed would change the thinking of any defense. Less blitzes, thus giving Ryan more time. Yes(two-dimensional) is about the way I see it too. I still say we need that down hill threat too.

Beef · 01-17-2011, 08:15 PM

(01-17-2011 02:48 PM)cooperbh Wrote: OK, I'll do the math: LT + LG + C + RG + RT + TE + RB = 7 blockers. That still leaves 3 players that can be used solely to run pass patterns.

That means opposing defenses would have to rush 8 in order for there to be a mismatch. Are you saying that opposing defenses sent 8 rushers 70% of the time in 2010?

No, but for you to imply that we had 7 blockers even more than half the time is beyond stupid. In fact, for you to even suggest that we came close to 1 v 1 blocking the majority of the time just proves you're full of shit & reaching. Go back & watch the games & then think about what you said again. I guarantee you'll feel real dumb.

cooperbh · 01-18-2011, 01:26 AM

(01-17-2011 08:15 PM)Beef Wrote: No, but for you to imply that we had 7 blockers even more than half the time is beyond stupid. In fact, for you to even suggest that we came close to 1 v 1 blocking the majority of the time just proves you're full of shit & reaching. Go back & watch the games & then think about what you said again. I guarantee you'll feel real dumb.

Oh. So, remind me again what it is that Ovie, Gonzo and the other TE do on running plays? What is it that Turner or Snelling are doing the vast majority of time on passing plays? Do the TEs not stay in to block or chip on their way out when necessary?

As for your "6-8 pass rushers 70% of the time" theory...

Did the Packers send more rushers than there were blockers to account for them on this sack?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-4-yd-loss

Or this one?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-7-yd-loss

Or this one?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-9-yd-loss

Or this one?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-9-yd-loss

Or this one?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-8-yd-loss

Strange. I counted only one instance in which they rushed six (against six blockers.) There was one instance in which they rushed five against five. For the other three sacks, it was just four against five.

I'll let you get started formulating your rebuttal now, which is sure to be another paragraph largely comprised of you stating some variation of, "You're stupid," over and over again.

***phocis850*** · 01-18-2011, 09:28 AM

If you spread the d out then ryan would be get more time to throw because the d would need to be honest.

cooperbh · 01-18-2011, 01:48 PM

(01-18-2011 09:28 AM)phocis850 Wrote: If you spread the d out then ryan would be get more time to throw because the d would need to be honest.

caver50 · 01-18-2011, 03:52 PM

(01-18-2011 01:48 PM)cooperbh Wrote: Let's end this nonsense right now. Below is every single sack the Falcons' line surrendered in 2010. Note the number of times opposing defenses rushed more than five defenders.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...10-yd-loss
Rushed 5.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-5-yd-loss
Rushed 4.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-2-yd-loss
Rushed 5.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-4-yd-loss
Rushed 3.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-9-yd-loss
Rushed 4.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-5-yd-loss
Rushed 5.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-4-yd-loss
Rushed 4.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-4-yd-loss
Rushed 4.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-5-yd-loss
Rushed 4.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-9-yd-loss
Rushed 4.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-8-yd-loss
Rushed 4.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-5-yd-loss
Rushed 5.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-9-yd-loss
Rushed 4.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...10-yd-loss
Rushed 5.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-4-yd-loss
Rushed 3.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...11-yd-loss
Rushed 4.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-9-yd-loss
Rushed 4.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-8-yd-loss
Rushed 3.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-7-yd-loss
Rushed 4.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...12-yd-loss
Rushed 4.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-6-yd-loss
Rushed 4.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-8-yd-loss
Rushed 5.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/atlanta-falcon...-3-yd-loss
Rushed 4.

23 sacks.

Number of times Falcons blockers outnumbered pass rushers: 17

Number of times pass rushers outnumbered Falcons blockers: 0

You would think if teams were sending 6-8 pass pass rushers 70% of the time over the course of 16 games as some people are claiming, at least one of them would have gotten through for a sack.

There is nothing to "spread out." We just need more O-linemen who can consistently win their one-on-one matchups. A good place to start the upgrading process would be the LT position, where Sam Baker by himself allowed 11 sacks - 2nd most in the NFL - along with too many pressures and hits to count.

Now thats laying it on the line. Awsome!!!