QB vs. Stacked Offensive Line

[skins4ever17]

Would you rather see Grossman behind a stud offensive line corps, or a star qb behind our line right now? Which do you think is more important to address, o line, or qb?

[terpskins10]

Star QB all day every day. Look at the best teams in the NFL. They all have great QBs, regardless of OL strength.

[amm0409]

Id rather have a Stud QB with our O-Line right now. I think we can address both positions. I understand OL and DL are important, but you can argue that QB is the "most important" position on the team. I think our Line has played fairly well. They've given Rex Grossman chances to throw and Rex either coughs it up, throws and interception or takes a sack. Rex can get rid of the ball way faster than what his been doing.

The answer- QB is more important

[skins4ever17]

Id rather have a Stud QB with our O-Line right now. I think we can address both positions. I understand OL and DL are important, but you can argue that QB is the "most important" position on the team. I think our Line has played fairly well. They've given Rex Grossman chances to throw and Rex either coughs it up, throws and interception or takes a sack. Rex can get rid of the ball way faster than what his been doing.

The answer- QB is more important

Do you feel that we need a top 3 elite QB, or would a mid round first qb do? (Shanny might choose a random qb in the later rd he likes, is what i'm saying).

[amm0409]

Do you feel that we need a top 3 elite QB, or would a mid round first qb do? (Shanny might choose a random qb in the later rd he likes, is what i'm saying).

Top 3 elite QB is what "I want." I understand that it could go the other way though.

Take a look at the top 5 QB's in the League now and then take them off their team, ALLA Peyton Manning

[skinfan2k]

Top QBs make their lines better by quick decision making, better judgements, better calls on the line, recognizing blitzes, changing plays to avoid disasters. We haven't had one since Brad Johnson here

[daveakl]

Look at san Fran for an answer. Check their red zone stats also.

[KDawg]

It's a necessity that we address both.

[amm0409]

Super Bowl XXVI - Mark Rypien, Washington
Super Bowl XXVII - Troy Aikman, Dallas
Super Bowl XXVIII - Troy Aikman, Dallas
Super Bowl XXIX - Steve Young, San Francisco
Super Bowl XXX - Troy Aikman, Dallas
Super Bowl XXXI - Bret Favre, Green Bay
Super Bowl XXXII - John Elway, Denver
Super Bowl XXXIII - John Elway, Denver
Super Bowl XXXIV - Kurt Warner, St. Louis
Super Bowl XXXV - Trent Dilfer, Baltimore Ravens
Super Bowl XXXVI - Tom Brady, New England
Super Bowl XXXVII - Brad Johnson, Tampa Bay
Super Bowl XXXVIII - Tom Brady, New England
Super Bowl XXXIX - Tom Brady, New England
Super Bowl XL - Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh
Super Bowl XLI - Peyton Manning, Indianapolis
Super Bowl XLII -Eli Manning, New York Giants
Super Bowl XLIII -Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh
Super Bowl XLIV- Drew Brees, Saints
Super Bowl XLV- Aaron Rodgers, Packers

But we also need to address the OL

[SWFLSkins]

Star QB all day every day. Look at the best teams in the NFL. They all have great QBs, regardless of OL strength.

Like the SuperBowl Redskins years? Yes you need a good QB, but no team is stopping a stacked OL from dictating the game in the air or the ground. Mark Rypien was sacked nine times, not in a game, in a year. The team ran at will, and he pass at will.

[terpskins10]

Like the SuperBowl Redskins years? Yes you need a good QB, but no team is stopping a stacked OL from dictating the game in the air or the ground. Mark Rypien was sacked nine times, not in a game, in a year. The team ran at will, and he pass at will.

The game is different. It just is. It's more passing-oriented and when you have guys playing at the level of Rodgers and Brady, you need to be able to keep up.
.
It isn't the 1980s anymore whether you want to believe it or not. Just look at how offenses operate now.

Also, you're never going to find an OL as dominant as the Hogs were. Those were 300 lb monsters in an era where the average O-lineman was closer to 275 and the average D-lineman around 230-250. It just isn't the same anymore and we can't continue to live in the 1980s and expect that formula to work.

[Ashburn Dave]

It's a passing league now so gimme a stud QB and then invest in the OL.

[JerseyGator]

I guess the Texans and 49ers should forfeit all the rest of their games, among others.

Tebow is showing people that the pro game isn't nearly as advanced over college as the ESPN idiots say it is. LSU and Alabama are in the NC game and they both are carried by their defenses and running games.

Elite QBs who can't run must have a stud OL or great OL coach. Brady's OL coach for years at least was there before Belicheck (over two decades).

Grossman had one year with a decent OL and his team went to the SB. I know they won most of their games with defense but their offense was the 2nd most improved that year behind the Saints in terms of yardage ranking. He hasn't had a good OL since.

[The Slamming Butcher]

If Grossman had any mobility AT ALL he could be a servicable franchise QB.

Unfortunately, it's as if his legs are made of concrete.

[Hitman21ST]

Stud QB. You could give Grossman 2 minutes to throw, he would still try to beat triple coverage, and throw INTs. You need a good QB making good decisions.

[SWFLSkins]

The game is different. It just is. It's more passing-oriented and when you have guys playing at the level of Rodgers and Brady, you need to be able to keep up.
.
It isn't the 1980s anymore whether you want to believe it or not. Just look at how offenses operate now.

Also, you're never going to find an OL as dominant as the Hogs were. Those were 300 lb monsters in an era where the average O-lineman was closer to 275 and the average D-lineman around 230-250. It just isn't the same anymore and we can't continue to live in the 1980s and expect that formula to work.

This is a funny argument, blocking is still blocking. And if Brady or Rodgers was behind the line the Redskins have fielded they would not be the Brady and Rodgers you think they are. I am not saying Grossman is legit or the future, but still you must give the QB time to let plays develop. As a former corner and safety I know you can't cover forever. Yes the underneath stuff with the rules are hard to defend but there absolutely is a reason the Redskins have trouble in the RedZone and can't score consistently, they can't block consistently allowing plays to mature.

---------- Post added December-12th-2011 at 06:51 PM ----------


Stud QB. You could give Grossman 2 minutes to throw, he would still try to beat triple coverage, and throw INTs. You need a good QB making good decisions.

I don't disagree with that, he is that guy.

[terpskins10]

If Grossman had any mobility AT ALL he could be a servicable franchise QB.


Oxymoron.

Franchise QBs shouldn't be "serviceable". You should be able to rely on them to win you games regardless of the strength of the OL or the guys around them.

---------- Post added December-12th-2011 at 06:54 PM ----------


This is a funny argument, blocking is still blocking. And if Brady or Rodgers was behind the line the Redskins have fielded they would not be the Brady and Rodgers you think they are. I am not saying Grossman is legit or the future, but still you must give the QB time to let plays develop. As a former corner and safety I know you can't cover forever. Yes the underneath stuff with the rules are hard to defend but there absolutely is a reason the Redskins have trouble in the RedZone and can't score consistently, they can't block consistently allowing plays to mature.[COLOR="Gold"]


I don't disagree that we need a stronger OL. I disagree that we can have a strong OL with Grossman and be a good team. Rodgers had an awful OL his first couple years starting (and it still isn't great now) and he still managed 4000 yard, 30 TD passing seasons. Brady has had inconsistent OL play. If they were behind our line, we'd be a very good team. That's how important QB play is, and yes it is more important than it was 30 years ago.

[SWFLSkins]

It's a necessity that we address both.

Get out of town with that common sense, it has no place here in knee jerkville.

[Truant]

Stud QB.

I understand that a bad line can ruin a young QB. David Carr comes to mind. However, I don't think that our line is that bad. Even if we made no upgrades via the draft and FA (I think we will) I think we'd have a serviceable line that a top QB could succeed with.

If we had an atrocious OL I'd still want a top QB, but I'd work on building a line before throwing him out to the wolves. I'd say the Titans are doing a pretty good job with Locker. Didn't rush him out there, got him to experience NFL game speed and now he'll get his shot.

[SWFLSkins]

I don't disagree that we need a stronger OL. I disagree that we can have a strong OL with Grossman and be a good team. Rodgers had an awful OL his first couple years starting (and it still isn't great now) and he still managed 4000 yard, 30 TD passing seasons. Brady has had inconsistent OL play. If they were behind our line, we'd be a very good team. That's how important QB play is, and yes it is more important than it was 30 years ago.


Certainly with a dominate OL and Grossman the team would have been better, and how far from Good they would be is debatable.

[terpskins10]

Certainly with a dominate OL and Grossman the team would have been better, and how far from Good they would be is debatable.

Right, I think we'd be a lot better. We'd be able to run the ball with more consistency and Grossman would have more time to throw.

That being said, I don't think his protection has been THAT bad as of late and he still hasn't gotten it done. Nowadays, you really need that QB you can rely on to win you games regardless of circumstances and surrounding players. I honestly don't think, over the last few weeks, that Grossman has had significantly worse protection than Rodgers but the results still speak for themselves. The Packers also have a much shoddier defense than ours and they still are undefeated. The only reason for that is Rodgers.

[SWFLSkins]

Right, I think we'd be a lot better. The Packers also have a much shoddier defense than ours and they still are undefeated. The only reason for that is Rodgers.

Yeah it would be hard to imagine how far the team could go next year with Rodgers starting at QB, or someone nearly that good. The guy just has a rifle and not a cannon which is wildly inaccurate.

[Hooper]

I hope we bring Rex back as a bridge/backup, but we need to find a QB. Rex is better than his rep, but even when he's "good Rex" his physical skills hold him back. It takes all the effort he has to make a throw Aaron Rodgers can make with a flick of the wrist.

I will say this about Rex. At times he has held on to the ball too long, but he also showed some real courage in the pocket. The Jets game was the only game I saw him looked rattled in the pocket.

[JerseyGator]

The Packers have five drafted WRs and one good TE. Last year, the Skins had one drafted WR on their roster in Moss by the end of the year. Their QB is a great one but he gets a ton of help from his receivers who know how to get open if not wide open.

[NoCalMike]

I would say stud QB first, and then you continue building the O-line after.

Regardless of the strength of the O-line, the position of QB still has a lot of other things that need to be prime. Decision-making, be able to make the tough throws when WRs are covered, but there happens to be a small opening.

Brady's first TD to the TE, the coverage wasn't horrible, but Brady was smart and used the size factor, threw the ball over everyone's head knowing the TE had a better than good chance to catch it, and if he didn't no one would. Little things like that are the difference between a good QB and a GREAT QB.

[Hitman21ST]

The Packers have five drafted WRs and one good TE. Last year, the Skins had one drafted WR on their roster in Moss by the end of the year. Their QB is a great one but he gets a ton of help from his receivers who know how to get open if not wide open.

We didn't draft Moss. We traded Laverneus Coles to the Jets for him in Gibbs' first or second year

[Voice_of_Reason]

Is it too much to ask for both?

But you NEED a solid QB or nothing else works in today's NFL.

[JerseyGator]

When I referred to drafted receivers, I meant in the NFL - not necessarily by their current team, although the Packers have drafted many receivers in recent years. I don't believe Anthony Armstrong was even drafted but was a product of the Arena League.

How's that overpriced elite QB working out for Oakland (not Campbell)? In the age of the salary cap, too many teams overpay in pursuit of that elusive elite QB.

[Hitman21ST]

How's that overpriced elite QB working out for Oakland (not Campbell)? In the age of the salary cap, too many teams overpay in pursuit of that elusive elite QB.

:ols:

I know you're not referring to Carson Palmer? He hasn't been elite since Kemo Von Olhoffen injured his knee in the playoff game.

Overpriced? Yes.

Elite? Hardly

[SirClintonPortis]

Building an O-line with 5 studs across the board is impossible without assistance from free agency and high draft picks. The Jets were able to do this, but that O-line has died since Faneca left them. The new "in" is having a QB with decent enough pocket presence and dodging ability to buy the extra time rather than having 5 great OL just letting him sit there to scan the field.

[The Slamming Butcher]

Oxymoron.

Franchise QBs shouldn't be "serviceable". You should be able to rely on them to win you games regardless of the strength of the OL or the guys around them.







We'll have to agree to disagree. Sunday night's game (Romo v Eli) was a perfect example of two servicable franchise QB's...both are pretty good and can be relied upon to win games on thier own from time to time, yet both are completely capable of Grossman moments as well. Neither would be considered "great", yet both are substantially better than what we have.

[Hitman21ST]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Sunday night's game (Romo v Eli) was a perfect example of two servicable franchise QB's...both are pretty good and can be relied upon to win games on thier own from time to time, yet both are completely capable of Grossman moments as well. Neither would be considered "great", yet both are substantially better than what we have.

Eli's already at "great," fast approaching "elite." He makes the clutch play when needed, and can make all the throws.

Hell, Peyton has four-interception games and for the longest time couldn't win the "big one", are you trying to say that he's not "great?"

[5ohhh]

I look at QB's like Flacco, Sanchez, Ryan.....all 3 guys not top 3-4 QB's but look like studs because of talent around him. Rex could be as good as any of those guys if given the same chance....and we know this because the one season he had a run game, a defense and a solid o-line they lost the championship game.

[The Slamming Butcher]

Eli is certainly better than Romo, but he's certainly not "elite" and not even what I would consider "great". He has not finished in the top ten in passing in his career. Not once. He has managed to finish in the bottom half of the league four of his six years in the league though. Serviceable? Yes. Great? Not at all.

Peyton on the other hand has been top ten every single year since 2002, finishing #1 three times. Yeah, that is most certainly "great".

[Phat Hog]

QB every day, all day. Also, we can have both if we focus on OL in the early to mid rounds...at least the beginnings of both.

[Hitman21ST]

Eli is certainly better than Romo, but he's certainly not "elite" and not even what I would consider "great. He has not finished in the top ten in passing in his career. Not once.

Peyton on the other hand has been top ten every single year since 2002, finishing #1 three times. Yeah, that is certainly "great".

How often did Montana finish top ten in passing?

[GibbsFactor]

QB is the most important position in all of sports. How is this a question?

---------- Post added December-12th-2011 at 09:17 PM ----------


I look at QB's like Flacco, Sanchez, Ryan.....all 3 guys not top 3-4 QB's but look like studs because of talent around him. Rex could be as good as any of those guys if given the same chance....and we know this because the one season he had a run game, a defense and a solid o-line they lost the championship game.

What do those three have in common?

No rings.

[amm0409]

Rex could be as good as any of those guys if given the same chance....and we know this because the one season he had a run game, a defense and a solid o-line they lost the championship game.

Rex is a head ache. I dont think he could every be a consistent QB no matter what you give him. We have weapons and we have a OL. They might not be the best, but the QB is the leader.
Iv seen Rex with his opportunities and his failed horribly. Time to throw, open WR etc... and his failed "BAD."

Theres no way Rex could ever be a #1 QB in the NFL period.

[amm0409]

somehow I double posted.

I understand a Great OL can help any QB. Its not going to with Rex.
I use to think if you plugged any QB under center for New England they would win. I just didnt like Brady

[The Slamming Butcher]

How often did Montana finish top ten in passing?

Nine times...are you really trying to compare Eli Manning to Joe Montana?

[Hitman21ST]

Nine...are you really trying to compare Eli Manning to Joe Montana?

Did he really? Wow, I didn't know that...thought it was a lot less often.

That really doesn't help my argument that you don't need to finish top ten often to be considered elite :ols:

I would still put him right below the "elite" level QBs...but really close.

[SWFLSkins]

Building an O-line with 5 studs across the board is impossible without assistance from free agency and high draft picks. The Jets were able to do this, but that O-line has died since Faneca left them. The new "in" is having a QB with decent enough pocket presence and dodging ability to buy the extra time rather than having 5 great OL just letting him sit there to scan the field.

It is funny that posters talk about trends and being "IN"..... Trendsetters don't follow they lead, and winning is always trendy.

[The Slamming Butcher]

Did he really? Wow, I didn't know that...thought it was a lot less often.

That really doesn't help my argument that you don't need to finish top ten often to be considered elite :ols:

I would still put him right below the "elite" level QBs...but really close.

It was actually great question as I didn't know the answer either...I had to look it up: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MontJo01.htm

I look at it this way, and I suppose it would be a pretty good question to pose to the membership here...How would you feel if we traded for Eli Manning?

The answers would be varied and interesting, I'd bet. Personally, I'd hate it.

[SWFLSkins]

Rex is a head ache. I dont think he could every be a consistent QB no matter what you give him. We have weapons and we have a OL. They might not be the best, but the QB is the leader.
Iv seen Rex with his opportunities and his failed horribly. Time to throw, open WR etc... and his failed "BAD."

Theres no way Rex could ever be a #1 QB in the NFL period.

The Bucs said the same about Steve Young, Doug Williams and Trent Dilfer before getting rid of them. I am not saying Rex can do it alone, but certainly he is better than Dilfer and he won it all.

[GibbsFactor]

A great qb is more than stats.

Brady quickly took over the mantle with his poise and clutch play, much like Montana. They weren't the most prolific and but still elite and knew how to manage an offense and how to make plays when plays were needed.

---------- Post added December-12th-2011 at 09:32 PM ----------


The Bucs said the same about Steve Young, Doug Williams and Trent Dilfer before getting rid of them. I am not saying Rex can do it alone, but certainly he is better than Dilfer and he won it all.

Rex is not better than Dilfer.

[SWFLSkins]

A great qb is more than stats.




Rex is not better than Dilfer.

Having watched Trent in Tampa and watching Rex in Chicago I would have to disagree. And remember Balt. cut him after they won the SB, so how good was he? And it is closer than you or I think.......btw Rex is well liked by his teammates... how important is that?

Dilfer, Trent 14 Years 1994 - 2007 TD: 113 Int: 129 Yds: 20,518 Rate: 70.2
Grossman 8years games 51 1,452 800 55.1 28.5 9,507 6.5 186.4 52 3.6 56 3.9 64 135 23 87 653 71.1

[SWFLSkins]

uhg, duplicated replicated post.

[Santana_Fan]

I'll go with QB. Elite QB's are much more difficult to be had. Offensive lineman may be the easiest position that transitions over into the NFL. We've had good offensive lines, back when Samuels and Jansen were in their prime, but it didn't particularly amount to much of anything (in regards to wins/playoffs). What we need, is to find us a franchise QB, while we have the opportunity to. A consistent QB, someone who can sense pressure and not turn the ball over. Our line in the beginning of the season wasn't as bad as people make it out to be. Grossman holding onto the ball for too long, and his inability to sense pressure, can make a line look worse than it actually is.

I can't count how many times I saw a RB wide open in the flat, and Grossman never even attempted to check the ball down to Helu, because he was too busy staring down a receiver. Which either lead to a forced pass, a sack or turnover.

---------- Post added December-12th-2011 at 09:39 PM ----------

I'll go with QB. Elite QB's are much more difficult to be had. Offensive lineman may be the easiest position that transitions over into the NFL. We've had good offensive lines, back when Samuels and Jansen were in their prime, but it didn't particularly amount to much of anything (in regards to wins/playoffs). What we need, is to find us a franchise QB, while we have the opportunity to. A consistent QB, someone who can sense pressure and not turn the ball over. Our line in the beginning of the season wasn't as bad as people make it out to be. Grossman holding onto the ball for too long, and his inability to sense pressure, can make a line look worse than it actually is.

I can't count how many times I saw a RB wide open in the flat, and Grossman never even attempted to check the ball down to Helu, because he was too busy staring down a receiver. Which either lead to a forced pass, a sack or turnover.

[greenspandan]

Mark Rypien.

/thread.

[PeterMP]

The Bucs said the same about Steve Young, Doug Williams and Trent Dilfer before getting rid of them. I am not saying Rex can do it alone, but certainly he is better than Dilfer and he won it all.
The Bucs as a football operation were very happy with Williams. The owner wouldn't pay him what he wanted, but the owner was a bit odd. Even the coach though Williams deserved more.

Nobody really doubted that Williams was a VERY GOOD QB when he left to go to the USFL.

The Bucs were 9-7 and 5-4 (strike shortened season) w/ Williams and then 2-14 w/o him.

[SirClintonPortis]

The Bucs said the same about Steve Young, Doug Williams and Trent Dilfer before getting rid of them. I am not saying Rex can do it alone, but certainly he is better than Dilfer and he won it all.

Tell me how likely a team fields one of the greatest defenses EVER? That's why Dilfer won. Good luck getting a HOF LB, two monsters in Siragusa and Adams, and so on.

---------- Post added December-12th-2011 at 10:10 PM ----------


It is funny that posters talk about trends and being "IN"..... Trendsetters don't follow they lead, and winning is always trendy.

There's a damn good reason LTs are usually the ONLY OL taken in the early first round.

[GOSKN5]

Stud QB. You could give Grossman 2 minutes to throw, he would still try to beat triple coverage, and throw INTs. You need a good QB making good decisions.

This..... Have you also noticed that grossman almost never checks to a back? He will occasionally hit them when they run a short route in middle, but I have seen him look downfield and never see a wide open back toward sidelines... Ends up takin a sack.... He won't settle or throw away.... Our line played decent yesterday without a few key pieces... Put rodgers, brady, brees behind that line and we beat Pats

[LoudMouth12thMan]

If Grossman had any mobility AT ALL he could be a servicable franchise QB.

Unfortunately, it's as if his legs are made of concrete.

Not to mention that unless Kiss' merchandise company has come out with a four inch cleat that I'm unaware of, we could stand to have some height behind the Line.

Short, slow, noodle armed, and dangerous...ly close to throwing another pick is not a recipe for success behind any O line. QB please. This line even as it was this past Sunday would be serviceable at the least with a fairly mobile QB. A good QB with good mobility can hide deficiencies of an O line. Our O line is younger and better than it's been in a long time regardless of what many think or say. Yeah we need depth but not much based on what I've seen this year from our O line. QB needed badly.

[GothSkinsFan]

Mark Rypien.

/thread.

You mean a QB who put it all together for one magical year because he had, perhaps, the greatest offensive line of all time??? (9 sacks, the whole year)

[Warhead36]

Anyone who picks OL is delusional, doesn't really understand modern football, and is stuck in the 1980s.

[Hitman21ST]

You mean a QB who put it all together for one magical year because he had, perhaps, the greatest offensive line of all time??? (9 sacks, the whole year)

9 sacks? Wow, I had forgotten that the line was that good. It also helped that we had the all-time leader in receptions playing for us at wide reciever, and one of the best DBs of all time.

[ciresolstice]

Star QB, with current O-line. Easy. Not to say the O line doesn't need some parts/improving, it does, but that star/stud QB is hard to come by and we haven't had one in ages.

[terpskins10]

A great qb is more than stats.
Brady quickly took over the mantle with his poise and clutch play, much like Montana. They weren't the most prolific and but still elite and knew how to manage an offense and how to make plays when plays were needed.[COLOR="Gold"]


It's funny - the better Brady's stats got in the regular season, the less he's won in the postseason/Super Bowl!

[GothSkinsFan]

9 sacks? Wow, I had forgotten that the line was that good. It also helped that we had the all-time leader in receptions playing for us at wide reciever, and one of the best DBs of all time.

9 - two great things in Skins history: Sonny Jurgenson and the # of sacks the 1991 Redskins gave up.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/1991.htm

The only team with more than 1 sack was Philly, with 3, in the final game that we mailed in.

[Son of Gadsden]

great O line with Helu behind it. Forget Grossman. >:]

[KDawg]

Anyone who picks OL is delusional, doesn't really understand modern football, and is stuck in the 1980s.

I always get a kick out of replies like this.

The obvious answer, is again, both. It's not one or the other. But, I'd like to hear the rationale for why you believe that anyone picking OL is "delusional". I fully disagree with that assessment. I don't care what the trends are in the NFL. A strong offensive line can only help a team. And it's obvious that a quarterback is of utmost importance to a team. But there are always exceptions to rules... Both ways.

[S.T.real,lights,out]

Star QB! Easy. A QB who can make quick decisions can make a line look much better than it is

[paloosa]

If you look at the QB's in amm0409's post you will see one thing in common with all of these QB's. None of them were Heisman trophy winners and none were considered in the top 5 of their draft class either. Well maybe Elway and Manning are the exceptions to the rule. So why would you want Andrew Luck or RGIII as a QB when history proves they aren't the guys that are going to get you to a Super Bowl and win it. History also proves that Heisman trophy winning QB's don't work out either. So the offensive line needs to be there in order to have success in QB play. You can bring up Peyton Manning as an example of that but he benefitted from a good offensive line. He had a quick release and knows the offense in and out. I think that he could win games behind our O-line because he is that good but he is the only one I think can. None of the other elites (maybe Aaron Rodgers) would do as good because they need that O-line support.

[SWFLSkins]

The Bucs as a football operation were very happy with Williams. The owner wouldn't pay him what he wanted, but the owner was a bit odd. Even the coach though Williams deserved more.

Nobody really doubted that Williams was a VERY GOOD QB when he left to go to the USFL.

The Bucs were 9-7 and 5-4 (strike shortened season) w/ Williams and then 2-14 w/o him.

Culverhouse treated Williams as a second class citizen and not worthy of his play that is true, McKay wanted him, but still teams speak with contracts in terms of how they value a player. The Bucs overlooked three future SB QB's.

And Williams career QB rating is not unlike Grossmans or Dilfers further proving my point. And that Redskins defense that year was really good even if not acknowledged.

---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 08:46 AM ----------


Tell me how likely a team fields one of the greatest defenses EVER? That's why Dilfer won. Good luck getting a HOF LB, two monsters in Siragusa and Adams, and so on.




There's a damn good reason LTs are usually the ONLY OL taken in the early first round.

Don't disagree with taking LT's and QB's in the first round. But it is apparent after years of ignoring the OL that picks should be used to shore up the line. Look I am for taking a QB this year in the first, all I am saying is that a star QB behind a sieve of a line is not going to make the team a perennial playoff team. You must build a team, a strong OL only enhances a QB's skills by giving him time to throw and a supportive running game.

---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 08:47 AM ----------


Anyone who picks OL is delusional, doesn't really understand modern football, and is stuck in the 1980s.

WWKDS



- what would KDawg say? Yeah I will go with him.

[KDawg]

If you look at the QB's in amm0409's post you will see one thing in common with all of these QB's. None of them were Heisman trophy winners and none were considered in the top 5 of their draft class either.



Super Bowl XXVI - Mark Rypien, Washington

6th round, pick 146.


Super Bowl XXVII - Troy Aikman, Dallas
Super Bowl XXVIII - Troy Aikman, Dallas

1st round, 1st pick.


Super Bowl XXIX - Steve Young, San Francisco

1st overall pick in the 1984 Supplemental Draft, where NFL teams got to pick up guys from the USFL.


Super Bowl XXX - Troy Aikman, Dallas

Again, 1st round, 1st overall.


Super Bowl XXXI - Bret Favre, Green Bay

2nd round, 33rd overall.


Super Bowl XXXII - John Elway, Denver
Super Bowl XXXIII - John Elway, Denver

1st round, 1st overall


Super Bowl XXXIV - Kurt Warner, St. Louis

Undrafted Free Agent


Super Bowl XXXV - Trent Dilfer, Baltimore Ravens

1st round, 6th overall


Super Bowl XXXVI - Tom Brady, New England

6th round


Super Bowl XXXVII - Brad Johnson, Tampa Bay

9th round, pick 227.


Super Bowl XXXVIII - Tom Brady, New England
Super Bowl XXXIX - Tom Brady, New England

Again, 6th rounder.


Super Bowl XL - Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh

1st round, 11th overall.


Super Bowl XLI - Peyton Manning, Indianapolis

1st round, 1st overall.


Super Bowl XLII -Eli Manning, New York Giants

1st round, 1st overall.


Super Bowl XLIII -Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh

Repeat, 1st round, 11th overall


Super Bowl XLIV- Drew Brees, Saints

2nd round, 32 overall.


Super Bowl XLV- Aaron Rodgers, Packers

1st round, 24th overall.

In addition to you being way off base with your comment that "none were considered top 5 of their draft class either" as 5 of them men listed were taken with the first overall pick, 3 others were taken in the first round. Those are all "top 5 QBs" in their draft class.

You got it right with Brady, Johnson, Brees, Warner, Rypien and Favre. So 6/14 isn't bad, I guess. You were 42.8% on the money.

Where you got it right was that none of those guys were Heisman Trophy winners. But I'm not sure why that even matters...

---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 09:08 AM ----------

But then again, you didn't get it right there, either. Drew Brees was the 2nd QB taken in the draft class in 2001 behind Vick. So he was top 5 in his class.

Brett Favre was the 3rd QB taken in the 1991 NFL Draft, behind Dan McGwire and Todd Marinovich.

So you were right on 4/14, paloosa. Which is 28.57%.

[gkekoa]

A stud QB requires one player...a stud OL requires five...

Let's go with the one player...better yet, let's improve that OL so we can protect our stud QB.

[wildbill1952]

For years, I have been an advocate of a strong offensive line, advocating drafting OL every year until the OL is the premier OL in the league. Teams that have done this have historically proved better, even with average QB's. See the Washington Redskin teams with Theismann, Rypien, or Williams. The OL made the average QB and a good set of receivers into Super Bowl winners. With Theismann, only the partying the night before the SuperBowl by a hungover offensive line made a difference in the rout by Oakland. Otherwise, this was the best offense ever fielded by the Redskins. To look at a modern example, see this year's San Francisco 49ers. They have a QB in Alex Smith that was considered below average. After spending precious first and second round picks on the OL, suddenly the offense shines and their record is indicative of the "sudden" improvement drafting an OL brings, far above what drafting Alex Smith brought.

For an example of a premier QB with a bad offensive line, look at Sam Bradford. After 2 years of being hit every play, his mechanics, especially his footwork, have deteriorated. Although it will generate arguments, the same may be said of Ramsey, Brunell and Campbell. Although coach-speak during those years said the offensive line was great, the truth is the QB was either being destroyed half the game or at best, had moderate success - not enough to get through the playoffs, but enough to get to the playoffs. The offensive line being the biggest difference between a playoff caliber team and a team in the playoffs.

Rule of thumb - any QB + great offensive line > any QB + bad offensive line.

The major point being that you can't really judge a QB with a bad offensive line. Any QB with a bad offensive line will not be as good. Any QB with a great offensive line will be better. If you give any QB adeqate time they will eventually find the open receiver.

So why this year do I advocate drafting a QB? First, the quantity of QB's. There are easily 3 QB's that should be eligible for this year's draft that easily qualify as future elite QB's - Luck, Barkley ad RGIII. At our current draft position, one of them should be available without mortgaging the farm by trading away draft picks. Second, the two QB's we currently have, even with the OL they have, have shown they are not that good. Third, both QB's are close to 30, meaning any upside they have has already been demonstrated. They have little or no future left. I had high hopes for Beck and love the gunshooter mentality of Rex. But the simple truth is, neither is a long term solution for the Skins.

Fourth, the Skins already have a player on the OL in Trent Williams that was worthy of a number 3 or 4 pick. The remainder of the OL should fall after number 16 but before pick 100. This year's draft puts 3 such OL in the range of the Redskins, with approximate picks of 36, 68 and 100. Adding a guard and a Right tackle should be fairly easy within this range. Spending another number 3 to 5 on another OL, although it would be great from an offensive standpoint, would only serve as Trent's replacement. When need is factored in, there just is no one at number 3 to 5 from the OL that is worthy of the pick on a Redskin team that has a good Left Tackle.

So for the first time in the last 10 years, I have to advocate someone other than OL in the draft. Too bad they didn't take my advice in previous years.

[#98QBKiller]

Star QB all day.

[PeterMP]

A stud QB requires one player...a stud OL requires five...

Let's go with the one player...better yet, let's improve that OL so we can protect our stud QB.
This is the problem with this thread. Having a stud offensive line would really require probabaly at least a significant upgrade at 3 different position. If we could turn that #1 pick into 3 different players that were really likely to be REALLY GOOD. I'd think you have to consider doing it.

However, we aren't likely to be able to turn that pick into 3 different players that are going to be really good. You could trade down, but your chances of converting this OL into a stud OL w/ the lower picks you get isn't that great.

Your really talking about drafting one stud OL (and maybe a guy that will be good (because you can get OL lower in the draft so you could probably trade out and still get a stud), which isn't going to give you a stud OL), OR a stud QB.

Given those options, you take the stud QB.

[#98QBKiller]

For years, I have been an advocate of a strong offensive line, advocating drafting OL every year until the OL is the premier OL in the league. Teams that have done this have historically proved better, even with average QB's. See the Washington Redskin teams with Theismann, Rypien, or Williams. The OL made the average QB and a good set of receivers into Super Bowl winners. With Theismann, only the partying the night before the SuperBowl by a hungover offensive line made a difference in the rout by Oakland. Otherwise, this was the best offense ever fielded by the Redskins. To look at a modern example, see this year's San Francisco 49ers. They have a QB in Alex Smith that was considered below average. After spending precious first and second round picks on the OL, suddenly the offense shines and their record is indicative of the "sudden" improvement drafting an OL brings, far above what drafting Alex Smith brought.

This is a common theme among older fans. They seem to have this nostalgia about them from the days of the Hogs and think that the same approach will translate to success in today's NFL. Nearly every Super Bowl winning team over the last quarter century has had a top 10 QB leading their offense. I don't think it's any kind of freak coincidence. As for the 49ers, they are near the bottom of the NFL with their passing attack (29th). That team is having the success they're having because of a strong defense and running game and the fact that they play in the weakest division in the league. Not to mention no one is familiar with Harbaugh's system just yet. Also, Alex Smith is the most sacked QB in the NFL right now (Roethlisberger and Rodgers are the 3rd and 5th most sacked BTW). So, let's give the 49ers another season and see if they can sustain that success with Smith. My guess is that they won't be able to.

[hunterx]

A star QB makes the OL better, and can make the running game better.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Like the SuperBowl Redskins years? Yes you need a good QB, but no team is stopping a stacked OL from dictating the game in the air or the ground. Mark Rypien was sacked nine times, not in a game, in a year. The team ran at will, and he pass at will.

You still wear a Members Only jacket, don't you?

[GibbsFactor]

Seriously, who's got Ray Ban's and red leather jackets with 10 zippers on them in their closet?

How about we draft a QB and then draft in the bottom half of the draft for the next ten years? That's where your real Oline talent comes from anyways.

[Botched]

It's weird how sometimes an offensive line forgets how to play. Like with the Colts this year. Here are their sack totals from 2008-present.

2008-14
2009-13
2010-16
2011-29 and counting

Same bizarre occurrence with the Patriots a few years ago. Fortunately they were able to bounce back in 2009.

2006- 29
2007- 21
2008- 48
2009- 18

I just hope we don't end up with one of these lines that has random, mysterious bad seasons in pass protection.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

It's weird how sometimes an offensive line forgets how to play. Like with the Colts this year. Here are their sack totals from 2008-present.

2008-14
2009-13
2010-16
2011-29 and counting

Same bizarre occurrence with the Patriots a few years ago. Fortunately they were able to bounce back in 2009.

2006- 29
2007- 21
2008- 48
2009- 18

I just hope we don't end up with one of these lines that has random, mysterious bad seasons in pass protection.

It's werid. Nothing could possibly explain why those lines suddenly got bad.

---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 11:28 AM ----------




How's that overpriced elite QB working out for Oakland (not Campbell)? In the age of the salary cap, too many teams overpay in pursuit of that elusive elite QB.

The last time Carson Palmer was considered "elite," George W. Bush was considered a very popular president.

---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 11:32 AM ----------

For the record, our line is not all that terrible. I think it's actually better than Pittsburgh's line. It's probably just as good as Green Bay's line. Those teams have 23 wins right now for what it's worth.

Redskins fans can get kind of stupid when it comes to line play because they were blessed to watch arguably the greatest line ever and that line played in an era of slow-footed defenders who you were allowed to mug.

The funny thing is this: the Hogs could not block Lawrence Taylor. Fortunately, there was only one Lawrence Taylor in football at the time.

Currently, every team has three Lawrence Taylors. And coaches use them in far more creative ways.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You know what also worked in the 80s? White running backs.

We should totatlly try to do that again.

[RiggosMohawk]

I'm going to borrow one of OF's arguments, which is very key to this debate.

In the salary cap era, it's unrealistic to keep an elite OL together. You could not afford to resign all of them to 2nd contracts. Averaging 4M per lineman per year (pretty conservative), that's 20M in your 5 OL starters.

You find your keeper QB, and he's gets a second contract. Hopefully you find a stud LT, and he gets a second contract also. In special cases I'd resign a RT to a second deal. Other than those, use your draft picks to constantly restock the OL.

And once QB is addressed, trading down (in any and all rounds) becomes a more viable situation.

[DC9]

All of you personnel gurus out there said that Peyton Manning was only good because he had a stud offensive line... well, I guess I don't need to say anymore... Draft a damn quarterback. You can grab linemen later that will be effective.

[terpskins10]

I'm going to borrow one of OF's arguments, which is very key to this debate.

In the salary cap era, it's unrealistic to keep an elite OL together. You could not afford to resign all of them to 2nd contracts. Averaging 4M per lineman per year (pretty conservative), that's 20M in your 5 OL starters.

You find your keeper QB, and he's gets a second contract. Hopefully you find a stud LT, and he gets a second contract also. In special cases I'd resign a RT to a second deal. Other than those, use your draft picks to constantly restock the OL.

And once QB is addressed, trading down (in any and all rounds) becomes a more viable situation.

To be fair, OF would also argue that you don't need a star QB at all because the term "star qb" is irrelevant. Jay Cutler is the best QB in the NFL, according to his observations.

---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 11:49 AM ----------


It's weird how sometimes an offensive line forgets how to play. Like with the Colts this year. Here are their sack totals from 2008-present.

2008-14
2009-13
2010-16
2011-29 and counting

Same bizarre occurrence with the Patriots a few years ago. Fortunately they were able to bounce back in 2009.

2006- 29
2007- 21
2008- 48
2009- 18

I just hope we don't end up with one of these lines that has random, mysterious bad seasons in pass protection.

I love this post. It's very true that a good QB makes an OL look good just as much, if not more, than a good OL makes an ok QB look good.

Would anyone here REALLY decide they'd like Sanchez and his OL over Rodgers and his OL? Or even Rodgers and the Rams OL?

[GibbsFactor]

Here's a question for everyone.

You can take Cam Newton and Roger Saffold

or

Jake Long and Mike Iupati.

Which one do you do?

[thebluefood]

Gotta build in the trenches, especially when your team has a couple of solid halfbacks like Royster and Helu. Games are won and lost on the line of scrimmage.

Having said that, in today's NFL, teams win championships on the backs of good quarterbacks. The days of QBs like Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson leading teams to Super Bowls is over. The only way you're lifting the Lombardi at the end of the year is with a top flight QB behind center.

You absolutely have to have both to go anywhere in the NFL.

[Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin]

You absolutely have to have both to go anywhere in the NFL.

Thing is, that's not even true. The Pitts/Arizona Super Bowl featured two of the more deficient offensive lines (and that includes league rankings for that season too) to appear in that game. But guess what they had behind center?

That's not to say you want to STRIVE for poor line play, obviously you want competent to good.

[Reaper 21]

I would argue we won the trenches last game by a lonhshot but two turnovers from our inept qb lost us the game.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You absolutely have to have both to go anywhere in the NFL.

No, no you do not.

Pittsburgh's line is an abortion. They made the Super Bowl last year and will - at worst - win 12 games this year.

Green Bay's line couldn't run block Alabama's defense. They are barely serviceable pass protectors.

Baltimore's line features a left tackle who weighed 400 pounds this summer.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

For years, I have been an advocate of a strong offensive line, advocating drafting OL every year until the OL is the premier OL in the league. Teams that have done this have historically proved better, even with average QB's. See the Washington Redskin teams with Theismann, Rypien, or Williams. The OL made the average QB and a good set of receivers into Super Bowl winners.

Again, such an OL is impossible in todays game, as has been noted time and time again. Each member of those lines were top 5 to top 10 at their position, and will be paid as such in free agency.


To look at a modern example, see this year's San Francisco 49ers. They have a QB in Alex Smith that was considered below average. After spending precious first and second round picks on the OL, suddenly the offense shines and their record is indicative of the "sudden" improvement drafting an OL brings, far above what drafting Alex Smith brought.

Alex Smith is the most sacked quarterback in football, with only 11 starts. In fact, he's not actually playing better, except throwing less INTs. The difference is that his defense is playing to their talent level, and their run game is dominant.


For an example of a premier QB with a bad offensive line, look at Sam Bradford. After 2 years of being hit every play, his mechanics, especially his footwork, have deteriorated.

I honestly think Josh McDaniels had more to do with Bradford's regression than the state of the line, seeing he was sacked just as much last year. And frankly, Bradford wasn't that good last year either - I'm not saying he's not a great prospect, but I would NOT use last year to defend him as such.


Rule of thumb - any QB + great offensive line > any QB + bad offensive line.

So Josh Freeman (21 sacks through 12 games) > Aaron Rodgers (32 sacks through 13 games) or Ben Roethlisberger (35 sacks through 13 games)?


The major point being that you can't really judge a QB with a bad offensive line. Any QB with a bad offensive line will not be as good. Any QB with a great offensive line will be better. If you give any QB adeqate time they will eventually find the open receiver.

It's not just about finding the open reciever, it's also about getting the ball to him. And your protection is not going to be perfect every play. And you're not always going to have an open reciever.

Again, I have no problem emphasizing O-Line. Once you have a franchise QB in place you should emphasize building and maintaining the line. Even if your line is servicable, you should constantly replenish it with draft picks. But I have a problem with the notion that you can plunk an average QB behind a line and have them win Super Bowls for you, because you simply cannot build a line even approaching how good the Hogs were.

[terryb101]

Star QB all day every day. Look at the best teams in the NFL. They all have great QBs, regardless of OL strength.

i dont care who are thats funny right there ..without a good line the qb doesnt stand a chance,period,, to rebuild a team ,you start with the o line, keep the qb you have, draft a "star qb" the next year, let the old qb get the kinks worked out of the o line and at the same time the start qb is learning..then once the o line hits its stride bring in the star qb, no reason to get him killed when you can use lets say grossman to absorb all the shots while the o line is jelling together

[Reaper 21]

the oline is not a redskin problem i dont see the hate, they get they lost KL for the season trent and brown have been injured, i like the oline, i think a couple more peices here and there for more depth would help and staying consistent would be more beneficial. Look at MS lines in denver great lines but just off the top of my head I can only name Clady as the guy drafted in the first round. He is good at finding diamonds in the rough IE KL, Montgomery these guys together were playing great football. J. Brown is in need of an upgrade his skill set has deteriorated since his hip injury, but he was a pro bowl player pre injury and MS traded a later pick for him. MS would admit that he didn't understand how much the injury was going to affect his speed, but dont worry we dont need 5 oline drafted in the first round to be competent. I honestly believe that most of the sacks we give up is due to not getting the ball out of the qb hands quicker, something the hogs couldnt change.

[whitejimmy]

Terrific debate. I'm really torn here. I'd love to play moneyball with a top 5 pick (trade down multiple times, add first rounders next year) and build a strong OL (e.g., both of Stanford's senior linemen). However, you can't pass up a guy like RG3. Tough call.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

i dont care who are thats funny right there ..without a good line the qb doesnt stand a chance,period,,

This is why the Steelers never win.

---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 02:55 PM ----------


Terrific debate. I'm really torn here. I'd love to play moneyball with a top 5 pick (trade down multiple times, add first rounders next year) and build a strong OL (e.g., both of Stanford's senior linemen). However, you can't pass up a guy like RG3. Tough call.


It's not a tough call.

You know who has an awesome offensive line?

The Browns.

Your plan is to build a team like the Browns. Get back to me with how that works out for you.

[DC9]

It's not a tough call.

You know who has an awesome offensive line?

The Browns.

Your plan is to build a team like the Browns. Get back to me with how that works out for you.

The Dolphins and the Panthers have pretty good offensive lines as well...
This isn't the 80's anymore.

I don't know how anyone can come in here with the "hogs" argument when right in front of you in Indianapolis, the Colts offensive line is all of a sudden one of the worst in the league with the loss of a quarterback.

Yes, Manning, Rodgers, and Brady would be Manning, Rodgers, and Brady behind our offensive line as well.

[Botched]

The Tennessee Titans are another team that's been consistently good up front. They can thank their offensive line for all of those Super Bowl wins.

[#98QBKiller]

This is why the Steelers never win.

Don't forget the Packers.

[GibbsFactor]

Here's a question for everyone.

You can take Cam Newton and Roger Saffold

or

Jake Long and Mike Iupati.

Which one do you do?

I thought it was a good question. :kickcan:

---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 02:39 PM ----------


Don't forget the Packers.

Or the Colts.

[jsharrin55]

No, no you do not.

Pittsburgh's line is an abortion. They made the Super Bowl last year and will - at worst - win 12 games this year.

Green Bay's line couldn't run block Alabama's defense. They are barely serviceable pass protectors.

Baltimore's line features a left tackle who weighed 400 pounds this summer.

For some reason I got a picture of James Harrison helmet to stomach on one of Roethelisberger's women. Ouch.

I know that this debate is supposed to be a 'which would you pick', but Luck/RGIII/Barkley and RT round 2 and OG with one of the 4's would give us a stud QB, average+ plus and depth as current starters get pushed. That's what I want to see. More holes for Helu, more time to pass for a guy that needs less to tear you apart.

[Geneva]

Would you rather see Grossman behind a stud offensive line corps, or a star qb behind our line right now? Which do you think is more important to address, o line, or qb?

[whitejimmy]

I thought it was a good question. :kickcan:

---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 02:39 PM ----------



Or the Colts.

Okay, I'll bite. Personally, the linemen. When our play-action scheme is working, being a QB in Kyle's offense isn't very hard. The bootlegs provide clean passing lanes and receivers are wide open. We don't need a blue chip QB to succeed if the linemen are top notch.

[Warhead36]

Skins fans, more than any other fanbase, have ridiculously high standards for OL play. Our OL as it stands right now is fine, maybe an upgrade at RT but other then that I'd be fine with the other starters returning next year.

[SirClintonPortis]

You know what is sad is that people have proven that QB>ELITE D>OL and yet people can't distinguish between an elite D and a good OL.

[wildbill1952]

I'm going to borrow one of OF's arguments, which is very key to this debate.

In the salary cap era, it's unrealistic to keep an elite OL together. You could not afford to resign all of them to 2nd contracts. Averaging 4M per lineman per year (pretty conservative), that's 20M in your 5 OL starters.

You find your keeper QB, and he's gets a second contract. Hopefully you find a stud LT, and he gets a second contract also. In special cases I'd resign a RT to a second deal. Other than those, use your draft picks to constantly restock the OL.

And once QB is addressed, trading down (in any and all rounds) becomes a more viable situation.From a team that gave 42 million to Albert Haynesworth, I'd argue that the money would have been more wisely spent keeping or getting a good OL. As far as "You could not afford to resign all of them (the OL) to 2nd contracts", name the top 5 starting OL who were free agents last year that were not signed by their original teams.

Here's one list of the top FA OL last year. I just grabbed the list form the first one googled for FA OL 2011. Let's see how the other teams did retaining their OL

Demetrius Bell (BUF) - OT - re-signed

Carl Nicks (NO) - OG - re-signed

Ben Grubbs (BAL) - OG - re-signed

Chris Myers (HOU) - OC - re-signed

Jeff Saturday (IND) - OC - re-signed

Nick Hardwick (SD) - OC - re-signed

Scott Wells (GB) - OC - re-signed

I'd say this argument doesn't hold water. Sure there are teams that let the second and third string go. The Skins have plenty of them on the roster. Other teams keep their good OL and they don't seem to have any problem keeping the ones they want to keep.

[bcl05]

QB is the most important position on the offense. The next most important are LT, RT, C, LG, RG. The very best offenses have excellent QBs AND excellent OLs. Excellent QBs are significantly harder to find, and harder to evaluate as college players. OL play can be dramatically improved by continuity and good coaching.

Finding a QB should be priority #1 for the skins, but improving the OL isn't far behind...

[terpskins10]

Skins fans, more than any other fanbase, have ridiculously high standards for OL play. Our OL as it stands right now is fine, maybe an upgrade at RT but other then that I'd be fine with the other starters returning next year.

We need to give up 8 sacks in a season for it to be a "good" offensive line.

Personally, I think if you add one more interior lineman, a right tackle, and get Trent Williams back, our line is more than sufficient if we can get a playmaking, consistent QB back there.

[Stew]

This is just my opinion, but i think for our team it is more important to get that franchise QB this draft and not compromise on a quality QB. A goodf QB can make an Offensive line look better. Look at Payton Manning. We are in dire need for a franchise QB. Last draft we solidified the bulk of our D. We can add pieces to our D through FA. I see this draft as a draft where we concentrate on our offense. I think we get the QB we want, but I also see us drafting some beefy O-linemen somewhat early and hopefully often. I wouldn't mind seeing an O-line FA either.

To answer the OP though, I think its more imparative to get that franchise QB out of this draft, and go from there.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

We need to give up 8 sacks in a season for it to be a "good" offensive line.

Personally, I think if you add one more interior lineman, a right tackle, and get Trent Williams back, our line is more than sufficient if we can get a playmaking, consistent QB back there.

I don't think the guard play is great, but I think guard play around the league has been abysmal this year. So...there you go.

I think the line is adequate. It could be better but so could everything else on the team. Our QB play has been dreadful and we have no receivers that can beat anyone.

[SkinsTillIDie]

This isn't even a question. You get a franchise QB for a decade with one pick, one move. You build an offensive line -- of 5 players, with necessary backups -- over time. It's really not a one-vs-the-other proposition.

The best offensive lines come and go rather quickly in this league. Just a couple years ago, the Giants were considered to have among the strongest lines in the league. This year, they've looked mostly decrepit, rapidly declining in effectiveness. Same with Minnesota; they were amazing, then awful, and now they're pretty good again, with new personnel. Houston has come out of nowhere with a rag-tag group and features the best line in the league -- also running the same blocking scheme that we run. The Saints' two best linemen are guards that were picked in the 4th and 5th rounds, developed into elite linemen.

The key is adding offensive linemen in the draft, every year, finding replacements for your starters before you need to, and continuing to invest in the position even when it seems like it's unnecessary. This is much easier to do when you've got a guy like Shanahan running the organization, able to maneuver the draft to finish with 12 picks, rather than a guy like Vinny Cerrato who doesn't pick again until the 5th round after drafting Laron Landry in the 1st. It also helps when you have a guy who actually knows how to build a football team, rather then a guy who played fantasy football with his owner buddy

[Stew]

I think the line is adequate. It could be better but so could everything else on the team. Our QB play has been dreadful and we have no receivers that can beat anyone.


I agree that our line has been adequate. I think a better QB could have one more with our O-line and offense in genreal.

I happen to like Terrence Austin, and I think if he were a slot WR with a better QB throwing him the ball, he would produce more. I also like Gaffney. The guy converts third downs, and isn't scared to go across the middle and make catches. He has made a living out of converting third downs and I think that he also would benefit from a better QB. Hell, Im even excited about ol Hanky once he is recovered from his injury, who was showing promise during the game he got injured. You make a point about separation though. My hope is that the young guys (Austin and Hanky) can learn to jocky for position against DB's a little better and be able to get separation that way, or get better at selling the double move. It may take a little time, but i think they can learn those tricks of the trade. As far as pure speed goes... Moss has lost a step. Didnt we used to have lots of burners though? What ever happened to that little quick guy we drafted a few years ago? Keith Eloi maybe? I forget his name, but kid was fast and had a huge verticle if I remember correctly. Either way, Im in favor of bringing in speed, but letting the WR's we have develop.

[SWFLSkins]

You still wear a Members Only jacket, don't you?

sure, here's my pic...http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/zoolander99/EmilMembersOnly.gif

---------- Post added December-13th-2011 at 04:26 PM ----------


You still wear a Members Only jacket, don't you?

thanks btw, I needed the laugh. I never had one even back in the day, hahahaa

[JerseyGator]

These franchise QB threads are so hard to follow. Many posters with long responses say one thing in the first paragraph and contradict themselves by the end of their post.

Most NFL QBs are system QBs. A franchise QB won't happen in an unstable organization with an unstable line. Eli Manning saw that and refused to play for the Chargers. Someone said quality OLs don't last long. I don't believe this was the case under Shanahan in Denver nor with the Patriots. The Giants OL was old when they brought it together so that is a possible exception.

The team needs to figure out what it wants to excel in. Some excel at defense, some at offense. This team does not have an identity and that should be the priority over the tricky pursuit of a franchise QB. Many teams have been waiting decades for the so-called franchise QB, and probably wouldn't recognize one if they saw one given the impatience of their fan bases/coaches.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

These franchise QB threads are so hard to follow. Many posters with long responses say one thing in the first paragraph and contradict themselves by the end of their post.

Most NFL QBs are system QBs. A franchise QB won't happen in an unstable organization with an unstable line.

Maybe you are right about the stable organization, but can someone tell me what is so special about Roethlisberger and Rodgers' lines? You know, the QBs who played in the Super Bowl last year and might play in it again?

I mean, we can all agree that the Steelers' line is terrible, right?

Good.

But, the Packers' line is nothing special too, correct?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Would you rather see Grossman behind a stud offensive line corps, or a star qb behind our line right now? Which do you think is more important to address, o line, or qb?

QB takes priority over ANYTHING else; but it's imperative we address both areas with young, quality, starting talent this coming off-season.

Hail.

[SirClintonPortis]

These franchise QB threads are so hard to follow. Many posters with long responses say one thing in the first paragraph and contradict themselves by the end of their post.

Most NFL QBs are system QBs. A franchise QB won't happen in an unstable organization with an unstable line. Eli Manning saw that and refused to play for the Chargers. Someone said quality OLs don't last long. I don't believe this was the case under Shanahan in Denver nor with the Patriots. The Giants OL was old when they brought it together so that is a possible exception.

The team needs to figure out what it wants to excel in. Some excel at defense, some at offense. This team does not have an identity and that should be the priority over the tricky pursuit of a franchise QB. Many teams have been waiting decades for the so-called franchise QB, and probably wouldn't recognize one if they saw one given the impatience of their fan bases/coaches.
Please tell me just how many bootleg play actions did Denver run to give its Oline a ton of help PLUS it's zone blocking scheme helping out matters? Denver's success is highly system based an FULL of lower round and undrafted Olinemen, NOT first rounders year after year.

OL-niks like yourself always seem to ignore that the QB is helped out by a potent DEFENSE moreso than an Oline.

[SWFLSkins]

Maybe you are right about the stable organization, but can someone tell me what is so special about Roethlisberger and Rodgers' lines? You know, the QBs who played in the Super Bowl last year and might play in it again?

I mean, we can all agree that the Steelers' line is terrible, right?

Good.

But, the Packers' line is nothing special too, correct?

Look at the Packers stats so far vs. opponents, very interesting stats. (Stats brought to you by Members Only, where you belong.)

TEAM STATISTICS
Packers Opponents
TOTAL FIRST DOWNS 291 279
FIRST DOWNS (Rushing-passing-by penalty) 78 - 185 - 28 78 - 188 - 13
THIRD DOWN CONVERSIONS 74/154 69/160
FOURTH DOWN CONVERSIONS 4/7 3/13
TOTAL OFFENSIVE YARDS 5254 5129
OFFENSE (Plays-Average Yards) 809 - 6.5 833 - 6.2
TOTAL RUSHING YARDS 1294 1378
RUSHING (Plays-Average Yards) 332 - 3.9 287 - 4.8
TOTAL PASSING YARDS 3960 3751
PASSING (Comp-Att-Int-Avg) 307 - 444 - 7 - 9.4 312 - 519 - 27 - 7.6
SACKS 27 33
FIELD GOALS 23/25 15/18
TOUCHDOWNS 57 33
(Rushing-Passing-Returns-Defensive) 11 - 39 - 2 - 5 9 - 23 - 1 - 0
TIME OF POSSESSION 31:23 28:36
TURNOVER RATIO +20

Opponent stats are second listed.

Their Defense can't suck and Rodgers takes care of the ball. Stats are pretty close other than TO's and how much they actually score in the RZ.


GB Sacks allowed so far is 33, Dallas is 28, Redskins are 35, Bills number one at 17 and the worst is Rams at 46

The Packers have allowed 55 QB hits, while Washington has allowed 92 and is third worst in the league.


http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&role=TM&offensiveStatisticCategory=OFFENSIVE_LINE&tabSeq=2&qualified=true

[bikie]

it seems like football logic that a superior OL would take precedence... you hear so many times, "give any qb enough time to throw and they can look like tom brady" and of course, the running game would be greatly aided, but the evidence shows that a great QB is more effective... recently brees, rogers, big ben, none of whom had what I'd consider great lines and their decision making and ability to stretch plays compensated for it... the effective passing game also contributed to an effective running game...

so yes, I'd go with the QB...

[gholmesbm]

Our 5 Super Bowl teams all had awesome OL's. The QB's were playing well, but certainly not legends.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Our 5 Super Bowl teams all had awesome OL's. The QB's were playing well, but certainly not legends.


yeah, bring back the hogs, thatll get us to the superbowl! just put whoever at QB! cause it worked 30 years ago!

or no.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Our 5 Super Bowl teams all had awesome OL's. The QB's were playing well, but certainly not legends.

For the millionth time, that was another era with different rules and different defenses. Honestly, trying to build a team to win the way Gibbs' teams won is almost like trying to build a baseball team around really good sacrifice bunters and spitballers.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Their Defense can't suck and Rodgers takes care of the ball. Stats are pretty close other than TO's and how much they actually score in the RZ.

No, it kind of sucks.



GB Sacks allowed so far is 33, Dallas is 28, Redskins are 35, Bills number one at 17 and the worst is Rams at 46

The Packers have allowed 55 QB hits, while Washington has allowed 92 and is third worst in the league.


http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&role=TM&offensiveStatisticCategory=OFFENSIVE_LINE&tabSeq=2&qualified=true

We have a ton of sacks and QB hits, because we have trotted out Grossman and Beck as our QBs. A small labradoodle has more pocket presence than those two.

55 hits is quite a bit when you considering that Rodgers has maybe the best release in football. And - of course - the Sainted Hogs - allowed only negative three sacks in 1991 so that is what we should strive for.

And thanks for pointing out that Buffalo apparently has a great o-line. They keep their QB upright and they run the ball pretty well. And they suck as an offense because they got suckered into thinking that Johnny Harvard is a good QB.

[SWFLSkins]

Our 5 Super Bowl teams all had awesome OL's. The QB's were playing well, but certainly not legends.


No, it kind of sucks.




We have a ton of sacks and QB hits, because we have trotted out Grossman and Beck as our QBs. A small labradoodle has more pocket presence than those two.

55 hits is quite a bit when you considering that Rodgers has maybe the best release in football. And - of course - the Sainted Hogs - allowed only negative three sacks in 1991 so that is what we should strive for.

And thanks for pointing out that Buffalo apparently has a great o-line. They keep their QB upright and they run the ball pretty well. And they suck as an offense because they got suckered into thinking that Johnny Harvard is a good QB.


First I think that the Packers D is not suck, but not great. Second those numbers were eye openers to me in many ways. I do think as has been discussed that both areas need improvement on the Skins and QB must be addressed. I just pointed out that the OL the Skins fielded this year would not benefit any QB. And I agree that Rodgers could play better than the two we had. The hits taken were most telling as far as pocket presence as you alluded to.

One can dream that both areas will be magically upgraded this off-season and members only jackets come back in style.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

First I think that the Packers D is not suck, but not great. Second those numbers were eye openers to me in many ways. I do think as has been discussed that both areas need improvement on the Skins and QB must be addressed. I just pointed out that the OL the Skins fielded this year would not benefit any QB. And I agree that Rodgers could play better than the two we had. The hits taken were most telling as far as pocket presence as you alluded to.

One can dream that both areas will be magically upgraded this off-season and members only jackets come back in style.


you do realize of those 35, john beck was responsible for 10 of them in one game? our oline has actually been very good in pass pro this year for the most part. our QB play has been so abysmal that our sack numbers get inflated from 2 QBs with absolutely no pocket presence.

our oline is nowhere near as terrible as people want to think it is. it needs some upgrades for sure, but its light years beyond the situation behind center.

[GothSkinsFan]

For the millionth time, that was another era with different rules and different defenses. Honestly, trying to build a team to win the way Gibbs' teams won is almost like trying to build a baseball team around really good sacrifice bunters and spitballers.

LOL, the spitball still works and always will; of course, it's illegal for that reason....
I think the difference is, it's easier to build a really good OL with non-1st round picks than it is to find a top QB after round 1. The OL, more than any other part of a team, is a system, and one "star" doesn't really do you any good if the rest suck and can't play together.

[leesburgvaskinsfan]

LOL, the spitball still works and always will; of course, it's illegal for that reason....
I think the difference is, it's easier to build a really good OL with non-1st round picks than it is to find a top QB after round 1. The OL, more than any other part of a team, is a system, and one "star" doesn't really do you any good if the rest suck and can't play together.

I agree. Except for Trent Williams, we have mostly mid to late rounders and/or undrafted FA in our OL rotation. They're not great but with time in the ZBS the chemistry is coming together. We need an elite QB prospect like RGIII to build around as we continue to build the OL.

Hail!

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

you do realize of those 35, john beck was responsible for 10 of them in one game? our oline has actually been very good in pass pro this year for the most part. our QB play has been so abysmal that our sack numbers get inflated from 2 QBs with absolutely no pocket presence.


John Beck was getting sacked by shadows during his abbreviated time as the starter.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

John Beck was getting sacked by shadows during his abbreviated time as the starter.

that game was absolutely hilarious. as a skins fan ive seen a lot of bad quarterbacking, but that was the single worst performance ive ever seen. downright embarrassing. he should have asked to have been removed at half time for a brandon banks, we probably would have at least gotten a field goal running the wild cat for the rest of the way.

[SWFLSkins]

Yardage-wise, the defense’s league ranking didn’t budge; it remains 31st overall and 31st against the pass. Clearly, this isn’t going to be a yardage year for the Packers defense, but it certainly has been a banner season for intercepting passes. The Packers have intercepted 27 passes, nine more than the closest pursuer. Those 27 interceptions, against the six Aaron Rodgershas thrown, has the Packers second in the league to the 49ers in turnover differential at 20.

Give up yardage and takeaway the ball vs. Members Only Jacket, hmmmmm what a dilemma.

---------- Post added December-14th-2011 at 12:08 PM ----------


John Beck was getting sacked by shadows during his abbreviated time as the starter.

hahaa somewhere there is a pick of John Beck in a MO jacket.

[terpskins10]

Yardage-wise, the defense’s league ranking didn’t budge; it remains 31st overall and 31st against the pass. Clearly, this isn’t going to be a yardage year for the Packers defense, but it certainly has been a banner season for intercepting passes. The Packers have intercepted 27 passes, nine more than the closest pursuer. Those 27 interceptions, against the six Aaron Rodgershas thrown, has the Packers second in the league to the 49ers in turnover differential at 20.


Also doesn't hurt that the opposing team has to play from behind pretty much the entire game. That *gasp* is because of their QB! ;)

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The Packers defense gives up a ton of yards. Granted, they are often in a "prevent" mode, but they weren't against the Giants and the Mighty Eli carved them up.

I don't think a team can be particularly adept at "forcing turnovers" unless they sack the QB a lot. Sack-fumbles seem to be something a team can generate. Everything else is luck and circumstance.

The classic example of this is the Saints' defense.

Their defense has actually gotten statistically better since the Super Bowl year. But it's not nearly as "impactful" because that defense generated twenty-goddamn-six interceptions. That is what we in the business call "a fluke." They had 9 the next year. They have 7 this year.

Turnovers are what make football NOT baseball. They are impossible to predict, impossible to really understand in that you can't sign a player to generate turnovers or prevent turnovers, and they are probably the single most determinative part of football.

In other words, the Packers could generate 50 turnovers this year on defense and I would not be the leat bit impressed. It's luck.

[Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin]

Our 5 Super Bowl teams all had awesome OL's. The QB's were playing well, but certainly not legends.

Imagine what this team could have been with a Joe Montana, Dan Marion or John Elway at QB with that line. We happened to get an elite-for-a-short-time QB (Joey T) who declined really fast, a guy who was at times a good QB (stats were different back then but he was important to that Tampa team) who, while mostly declining, had a magical late season run and another guy who actually was fairly talented but was a less mobile Tony Romo when it came to late in games and, again, declined precipitously.

That's not the same as just throwing some 'dude' back there and hoping for the best.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

That's not the same as just throwing some 'dude' back there and hoping for the best.

I think that if Gibbs had even a Phil Simms level QB for his entire tenure, he would have set records that would never have been broken. The Skins of the 80s always get short-shrift in the discussion of "dynasties" because they had no unifying figure outside of Gibbs. Heck, you saw what happened when he got two excellent years out of Joe T. He spent the rest of his time here scrambling to fill the position and outside of Rypien's one insane year, I'm not sure he ever really did.

Something to ponder: Gibbs underachieved during his intial tenure here because the QB position underperformed. Discuss.

[Botched]

Something to ponder: Gibbs underachieved during his intial tenure here because the QB position underperformed. Discuss.

Did Gibbs not put a lot of effort into finding a good QB, or was it just bad luck that he ended up with one Joe Blow after another? Whatever the case, it was the same in Gibbs 2.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Did Gibbs not put a lot of effort into finding a good QB, or was it just bad luck that he ended up with one Joe Blow after another? Whatever the case, it was the same in Gibbs 2.

It's really all Jay Schroeder's fault for being Jay Schroeder.

By the way, if ES existed in 1990, there would have been a very vocal "Rypien sucks" contingent. I probably would have been part of it, because I am a dick. My argument, "Any QB who only gets sacked once every other game should have a better TD/INT ratio!!!"

[RedskinsInFebruary]

If I had to choose between an elite QB and stud OL I'd choose the QB.

If I had to choose between a stud OL and stud anything else, it'd be a stud OL.

Can't be overestimated--a dominant OL improves everything else, even the D.

[F Landry]

So basically you are asking me between these 2 lineups:

QB: Andrew Luck/RGIII/Barkley

LT- Trent Williams
LG- Either Kory Licht/Maurice Hurt/FA signee
C- Will Montgomery
RG- Chris Chester/Kory Licht/Maurice Hurt
RT- Willie Smith/Sean Locklear

OR

QB: Rex Grossman

LT- Matt Kalil
LG- Kory Licht/Maurice Hurt
C- Will Montgomery
RG- Chris Chester
RT- Trent Williams

I'll take option numero uno

[amm0409]

QB: Andrew Luck/RGIII/Barkley

LT- Trent Williams
LG- Either Kory Licht/Maurice Hurt/FA signee
C- Will Montgomery
RG- Chris Chester/Kory Licht/Maurice Hurt
RT- Willie Smith/Sean Locklear



When I see it on paper like that. Im going with the first option as well. I cant take Sexy Rexy anymore, I dont care if you throw in Kali. Im fine with building a Stud O-Line, but no more Sexy. Will see these next couple of games what Willie Smith Can do as well.

[skins4ever17]

The game is different. It just is. It's more passing-oriented and when you have guys playing at the level of Rodgers and Brady, you need to be able to keep up.
.
It isn't the 1980s anymore whether you want to believe it or not. Just look at how offenses operate now.

Also, you're never going to find an OL as dominant as the Hogs were. Those were 300 lb monsters in an era where the average O-lineman was closer to 275 and the average D-lineman around 230-250. It just isn't the same anymore and we can't continue to live in the 1980s and expect that formula to work.

Very good points, terpskins.