Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, thezerawkid said:

Nah, we “live and die” with our offensive line. This is what the truly good teams who consistently win have going for them: strong line play. 

 

Curious, honestly looking for an answer here: who is the last quarterback to win a super bowl behind a shitty line?

 

 

Russell Wilson

 

But yeah it doesn't happen very often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, omgdrdoom said:

 

Russell Wilson

I dunno...that Seahawks team was able to run the ball, too.

 

Just researched a bit, Wilson was sacked 44 times. There were 12 teams, over a third of the league who gave up anywhere from 40-44 sacks on the season. Nine teams gave up more than 44 sacks. Not sure about pressure stats.

 

They also ran for 136.8 yards per game, best for fourth in the league.

 

Is it possible perhaps Wilson’s line wasn’t great but probably at least a little better than ours from this last campaign?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, thezerawkid said:

I dunno...that Seahawks team was able to run the ball, too.

 

Just researched a bit, Wilson was sacked 44 times. There were 12 teams, over a third of the league who gave up anywhere from 40-44 sacks on the season. Nine teams gave up more than 44 sacks. Not sure about pressure stats.

 

They also ran for 136.8 yards per game, best for fourth in the league.

 

Is it possible perhaps Wilson’s line wasn’t great but probably at least a little better than ours from this last campaign?

I mean it was probably better than ours last year, but it wouldn't take much to be better than the line we put out there (especially early in the year).

 

Marshawn Lynch led the league in broken tackles that year and Russell Wilson was running for his life scrambling for yards all year, so let's take those things into consideration with that 136.8 rushing yards per game. Wilson being excellent that season rolling out of the pocket and making plays on his own is a huge reason for that number to be so high, not because the run blocking was any good. Also with how mobile and amazing his footwork was in 2013, the fact that they still gave up 44 sacks is mindblowing and really shows how terrible the pass protection was.

 

Here's a write up from PFF after the 2013 season in their OL rankings:

 

27. Seattle Seahawks (20th)
PB: 25th, RB: 23rd, PEN: 30th

Stud: With injuries depleting the ranks, it was left to Michael Bowie (+7.1) to lead the team with their highest grade. He may eventually end up at guard (as he was for their recent playoff victory over the Saints) with his run blocking particularly impressive.

Dud: The team has to hope they never, ever have to start Paul McQuistan (-24.8) at left tackle again. It went very badly and he wasn’t much better at guard.

Analysis: An interesting year. Losing Russell Okung hurt but when they did get him on the field his play was a level or three below it’s usual high standard. At center Max Unger had a down year as a variety of combinations on either side of him failed. Essentially, they did enough at times for Marshawn Lynch to make yardage, but this had the feel of an experimental group with the coaches trying to luck into the right combination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just answering the question of the last time a QB won a Super Bowl with a shitty line. I'm not trying to imply that our line is fine or that we should look for a new QB.

 

We don't have 2013 Russell Wilson, we don't have Marshawn Lynch, and we don't have the #1 defense in the NFL. You need very specific players and schemes to be able to overcome a shit OL. It's definitely a lot easier to build a team with a good OL than it is to ignore the OL and try to build around a bad one. I was just pointing out that it actually has happened in recent memory, but I couldn't tell ya when it's happened before that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thezerawkid said:

Nah, we “live and die” with our offensive line. This is what the truly good teams who consistently win have going for them: strong line play. 

 

Curious, honestly looking for an answer here: who is the last quarterback to win a super bowl behind a shitty line?

 

If you had a sure fire upgrade to Andy Dalton available to draft, but you’re still facing significant deficiencies along the front five, the smart thing for the sake of building to win consistently isn’t to ignore the issues with the line. You already have an above average guy who isn’t too old yet who has proven he can put up numbers and win a lot. With a crummy line comes an underachieving running game, too. You simply put your team in a better position to win when you can protect whoever the fuck is the quarterback and can carve some holes for whoever the fuck is lugging the rock.

 

Is it exciting and sexy to draft and spend on offensive line? No. Not to many because not many spend much time watching great line play. The point is, if they aren’t getting noticed, they’re doing great. People watch for big plays. How many of those did we have this year? How much scoring, period, did we do this year?

 

OFFENSIVE LINE. If you’re not on board with this as being *the* priority moving forward, you are, quite frankly, incorrect. 

 

Note: Bung, that’s not all directed right at you...there plenty who need get this message through their skulls.

 

And, oh yeah, welcome to the board, new guy.

Oh, I didn't take it personally at all. I am all too familiar with our offensive line struggles. In my last post about Dalton being "the guy" for the foreseeable future, I was assuming that we would address the line first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, omgdrdoom said:

I'm just answering the question of the last time a QB won a Super Bowl with a shitty line. I'm not trying to imply that our line is fine or that we should look for a new QB.

 

We don't have 2013 Russell Wilson, we don't have Marshawn Lynch, and we don't have the #1 defense in the NFL. You need very specific players and schemes to be able to overcome a shit OL. It's definitely a lot easier to build a team with a good OL than it is to ignore the OL and try to build around a bad one. I was just pointing out that it actually has happened in recent memory, but I couldn't tell ya when it's happened before that.

Fair enough. Thanks for finding an even more detailed breakdown of their O-line play that year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bunghole said:

Oh, I didn't take it personally at all. I am all too familiar with our offensive line struggles. In my last post about Dalton being "the guy" for the foreseeable future, I was assuming that we would address the line first.

Yeah man, I just get frustrated with the perspective that we need the new, bright, and shiny thing. Glad you knew it wasn’t a personal thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, thezerawkid said:

Yeah man, I just get frustrated with the perspective that we need the new, bright, and shiny thing. Glad you knew it wasn’t a personal thing.

Who is saying that we don't need OL help? But that doesn't mean that we'll get it. After betting the farm on the two top OL draft picks a couple of years ago, it's not like Mikey to cut his losses and dump them and start over. So I don't think that people are content with the OL, just rationalizing that we are probably stuck with it and hope that the coaches can make it work.

 

As far as getting a new shiny QB, speculation is futile, It's not going to happen soon. They will probably draft another McCarron around the same spot and hope he pans out as a reliable backup if Dalton gets hurt again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Hooky said:

Who is saying that we don't need OL help? But that doesn't mean that we'll get it. After betting the farm on the two top OL draft picks a couple of years ago, it's not like Mikey to cut his losses and dump them and start over. So I don't think that people are content with the OL, just rationalizing that we are probably stuck with it and hope that the coaches can make it work.

 

As far as getting a new shiny QB, speculation is futile, It's not going to happen soon. They will probably draft another McCarron around the same spot and hope he pans out as a reliable backup if Dalton gets hurt again.

I don’t know well enough to name names,  I haven’t been keeping track. But there are certainly people on this board and throughout the fandom that are always clamoring for a position player to be taken before drafting line help. You know that as well as I do. 

 

And, of course speculation is futile. But, this is a fan message board, it’s what happens about 80% of the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, thezerawkid said:

I don’t know well enough to name names,  I haven’t been keeping track. But there are certainly people on this board and throughout the fandom that are always clamoring for a position player to be taken before drafting line help. You know that as well as I do. 

 

And, of course speculation is futile. But, this is a fan message board, it’s what happens about 80% of the time. 

Well here's the thing, if we actually got some help using FA it could really open up the draft for us. Even if we don't, I still don't think it's crazy to want to take Minkah Fitzpatrick or Derwin James if they're available at our pick (and Quenton Nelson isn't there). I'd rather have one of the best safety prospects in the past few years over forcing another LT or RT in that spot when we could pick someone up in the 2nd-3rd at that position. The dropoff between safeties past the top 2 is waaay bigger than the drop between McGlinchey and the next couple of OT prospects (IMO of course).

 

Same with other positions of need, if the team views Roquan Smith or Da'Ron Payne as BPA and they're available, I wouldn't get mad at them taking a guy like that as long as we address the OL with at least 2 picks within our next 3 or 4 choices.

 

As much as I give Mike Brown/Bengals in general a hard time with their decision making at times, I don't think they'll be wrong to go a non-OL position in the 1st round (assuming we go OL shortly after). I think people are being irrational when they think OL is the only option at #12 overall. The only way #12 should be OL is if Nelson is somehow there or if the team is really set that McGlinchey is an elite prospect. There are actually better arguments available that we shouldn't go OL in the 1st round if you look at our roster and the players projected to be available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, omgdrdoom said:

Well here's the thing, if we actually got some help using FA it could really open up the draft for us. Even if we don't, I still don't think it's crazy to want to take Minkah Fitzpatrick or Derwin James if they're available at our pick (and Quenton Nelson isn't there). I'd rather have one of the best safety prospects in the past few years over forcing another LT or RT in that spot when we could pick someone up in the 2nd-3rd at that position. The dropoff between safeties past the top 2 is waaay bigger than the drop between McGlinchey and the next couple of OT prospects (IMO of course).

 

Same with other positions of need, if the team views Roquan Smith or Da'Ron Payne as BPA and they're available, I wouldn't get mad at them taking a guy like that as long as we address the OL with at least 2 picks within our next 3 or 4 choices.

 

As much as I give Mike Brown/Bengals in general a hard time with their decision making at times, I don't think they'll be wrong to go a non-OL position in the 1st round (assuming we go OL shortly after). I think people are being irrational when they think OL is the only option at #12 overall. The only way #12 should be OL is if Nelson is somehow there or if the team is really set that McGlinchey is an elite prospect. There are actually better arguments available that we shouldn't go OL in the 1st round if you look at our roster and the players projected to be available.

I agree with all this. Maybe they can do the "let the clock run out" for a slot or 2 if they're player isn't there or they can't get a trade down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, schotzee said:

I agree with all this. Maybe they can do the "let the clock run out" for a slot or 2 if they're player isn't there or they can't get a trade down.

Yep and with all that said, our OL is realllllllly bad and we need to improve it to at least an average line for 2018. I feel like every time I mention one of the safeties or Payne people go nuts with "OMG YOU WANT TO IGNORE THE LINE!!!!" but all I'm saying is that you can't tunnel vision into the OL if the guy you want isn't there. I don't think anyone past Nelson warrants a premium #12 draft choice this year and he's probably gone by then. If the team feels the same way, so be it. We can get guards, tackles, and centers in 2-4 but hopefully we have C taken care of before the draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, omgdrdoom said:

Yep and with all that said, our OL is realllllllly bad and we need to improve it to at least an average line for 2018. I feel like every time I mention one of the safeties or Payne people go nuts with "OMG YOU WANT TO IGNORE THE LINE!!!!" but all I'm saying is that you can't tunnel vision into the OL if the guy you want isn't there. I don't think anyone past Nelson warrants a premium #12 draft choice this year and he's probably gone by then. If the team feels the same way, so be it. We can get guards, tackles, and centers in 2-4 but hopefully we have C taken care of before the draft.

 

I think people "go nuts" because we heard this same "BPA, don't reach for OL" argument last year about how none of the OT prospects were worthy of the 9th overall pick.  

 

Then instead, we drafted an undersized WR that apparently can't learn an NFL playbook but runs really fast in shorts. It's also worth noting that 2 years before, we did draft an OT in the 1st round despite injury concerns & crowed about what a steal he was, and he's actually been a bust.

 

So it's partly that the OL is in desperate need of help, and also partly that we don't trust the team to evaluate whether an OT is actually worth the pick or not.  Thus, when you say "This safety is worth the pick but that OT is not" people are not so trusting of that assessment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

 

I think people "go nuts" because we heard this same "BPA, don't reach for OL" argument last year about how none of the OT prospects were worthy of the 9th overall pick.  

 

Then instead, we drafted an undersized WR that apparently can't learn an NFL playbook but runs really fast in shorts. It's also worth noting that 2 years before, we did draft an OT in the 1st round despite injury concerns & crowed about what a steal he was, and he's actually been a bust.

 

So it's partly that the OL is in desperate need of help, and also partly that we don't trust the team to evaluate whether an OT is actually worth the pick or not.  Thus, when you say "This safety is worth the pick but that OT is not" people are not so trusting of that assessment. 

 

And then last year say the team takes Garett Bolles (first OT taken) over all of the defensive guys I wanted and I'd still be able to point to that and show how we shouldn't hyperfocus on OL with our first pick because it's not always correct.

 

Just pointing out how going OL in R1 isn't automatically the answer to a poor OL. It's not like it's our only issue on the team and there's much more context to look at than "our OL sucks therefore we must draft OL at #12". If we take McGlinchey and he ends up being a perennial All-Pro, trust me, I'll be a very happy dude, I just don't think he's going to be. If I were in charge of the team and McGlinchey, all of the interior guys other than Nelson, and then Da'Ron Payne are available, I'll take Payne 99/100 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, omgdrdoom said:

 

And then last year say the team takes Garett Bolles (first OT taken) over all of the defensive guys I wanted and I'd still be able to point to that and show how we shouldn't hyperfocus on OL with our first pick because it's not always correct.

 

Just pointing out how going OL in R1 isn't automatically the answer to a poor OL. It's not like it's our only issue on the team and there's much more context to look at than "our OL sucks therefore we must draft OL at #12". If we take McGlinchey and he ends up being a perennial All-Pro, trust me, I'll be a very happy dude, I just don't think he's going to be. If I were in charge of the team and McGlinchey, all of the interior guys other than Nelson, and then Da'Ron Payne are available, I'll take Payne 99/100 times.

 

No, but it's certainly the most pressing by a long shot.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

 

No, but it's certainly the most pressing by a long shot.  

I'm just wondering why the same people who don't think the Bengals can make the correct choice in players would find a way to pick the right OT. Say you put a gun to Mike Brown's head and forced him to pick a tackle last year, does he take Bolles, Robinson, Ramczyk, or even someone else? Our team sucks with or without Bolles last year if that's our guy. Our team probably wins 1-2 more games with Reuben Foster, Derek Barnett, or Marshon Lattimore, 3 guys that a lot of us were really wanting the team to pick. If you take Ramczyk you hit the jackpot, but why are we going to pick the right guy if you don't feel that the team hasn't been able to lately?

 

You don't even have to respond to that first part, that's just me thinking and typing my random thoughts on it, but here's the important part: do you really throw all other context out the window and take your "most pressing need" with your 1st round pick every single time? I would strongly disagree with that approach to the NFL draft if that's what you're suggesting that we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, omgdrdoom said:

I'm just wondering why the same people who don't think the Bengals can make the correct choice in players would find a way to pick the right OT. Say you put a gun to Mike Brown's head and forced him to pick a tackle last year, does he take Bolles, Robinson, Ramczyk, or even someone else? Our team sucks with or without Bolles last year if that's our guy. Our team probably wins 1-2 more games with Reuben Foster, Derek Barnett, or Marshon Lattimore, 3 guys that a lot of us were really wanting the team to pick. If you take Ramczyk you hit the jackpot, but why are we going to pick the right guy if you don't feel that the team hasn't been able to lately?

 

You don't even have to respond to that first part, that's just me thinking and typing my random thoughts on it, but here's the important part: do you really throw all other context out the window and take your "most pressing need" with your 1st round pick every single time? I would strongly disagree with that approach to the NFL draft if that's what you're suggesting that we do.

 

That's a fair question.  However if you accept that they're shit at evaluating prospects & would do as well pulling names out of a hat, it may as well be at the position of greatest need. 

 

No, I'm not suggesting they do that, but when you're talking about waiting until later rounds hoping to get lucky when the OL was this terrible, IDK.. not so trusting.  3-4 slots difference in the 1st round is not some huge reach.  More of a guess TBH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, omgdrdoom said:

Well here's the thing, if we actually got some help using FA it could really open up the draft for us. Even if we don't, I still don't think it's crazy to want to take Minkah Fitzpatrick or Derwin James if they're available at our pick (and Quenton Nelson isn't there). I'd rather have one of the best safety prospects in the past few years over forcing another LT or RT in that spot when we could pick someone up in the 2nd-3rd at that position. The dropoff between safeties past the top 2 is waaay bigger than the drop between McGlinchey and the next couple of OT prospects (IMO of course).

 

Same with other positions of need, if the team views Roquan Smith or Da'Ron Payne as BPA and they're available, I wouldn't get mad at them taking a guy like that as long as we address the OL with at least 2 picks within our next 3 or 4 choices.

 

As much as I give Mike Brown/Bengals in general a hard time with their decision making at times, I don't think they'll be wrong to go a non-OL position in the 1st round (assuming we go OL shortly after). I think people are being irrational when they think OL is the only option at #12 overall. The only way #12 should be OL is if Nelson is somehow there or if the team is really set that McGlinchey is an elite prospect. There are actually better arguments available that we shouldn't go OL in the 1st round if you look at our roster and the players projected to be available.

Dude, I totally agree. I would love to see a more aggressive and intelligent approach to free agency. A few years back, we made some good moves. Pac-Man, for his bag of crazy, has given us quality play for a good several years now. Terence Newman was terrific for the couple years we had him. If we could pad the areas of need with a quantified person or two, especially in the area of offensive line, I am with you on not reaching yet sticking to areas of need. A modified BPA approach is where our front office should be right now.

 

We don’t need to address position player areas except for, perhaps, tight end. Also, I hope that just because they apparently whiffed big time on Ogbuehi and Fischer, they don’t back off finding the guy(s) they want for those positions. Particularly with a new sheriff in town, I really wanna see what the approach becomes. I worry that whoever it is, will be pressured into going with the flow. We might know quite well how successful Marvin was in negotiating for “more control” when we see how the personnel decisions regarding retooling the line shake out. If they don’t spend and they don’t draft, I think we know it’s two more years of winter. Not to put too fine a point on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, omgdrdoom said:

I'm just wondering why the same people who don't think the Bengals can make the correct choice in players would find a way to pick the right OT. Say you put a gun to Mike Brown's head and forced him to pick a tackle last year, does he take Bolles, Robinson, Ramczyk, or even someone else? Our team sucks with or without Bolles last year if that's our guy. Our team probably wins 1-2 more games with Reuben Foster, Derek Barnett, or Marshon Lattimore, 3 guys that a lot of us were really wanting the team to pick. If you take Ramczyk you hit the jackpot, but why are we going to pick the right guy if you don't feel that the team hasn't been able to lately?

 

You don't even have to respond to that first part, that's just me thinking and typing my random thoughts on it, but here's the important part: do you really throw all other context out the window and take your "most pressing need" with your 1st round pick every single time? I would strongly disagree with that approach to the NFL draft if that's what you're suggesting that we do.

I’d *like* to believe that the worst case scenario with the offensive line came to a head last year: Alexander totally shit the bed coaching them and he got worse at evaluating.

 

I’d also like to believe that with Ced, we really were sure we had a steal, I remember a lot of analysts thinking we did too. But, following his collegiate injury, he is simply not physically going to be his same self. He is simply, physically, unable to do the job the same or better than he could before he sustained the injury, but we were gambling that he could, based on precedent set by other players who suffered similar injuries at similar points in their careers.

 

I’d just like to think that tossing Alexander out the door was great, but that, all around, we just got unlucky with Ced’s development. Even still, we had no business letting the insurance policies leave for greener pastures. I know Whit commanded a lot of money for a man of his age, but, frankly, the market dictated his worth. We should have paid him just to keep him in stripes till retirement even as a thank you. It’s not like his production had dropped off. His locker room presence is something that I am sure we are sorely in need of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, membengal said:

Kinda hoping getting Paul Alexander the fuck away from the talent evaluation process and the fuck away from helping to set the big board will help on the team identifying college lineman in the draft.

Maybe so, but you'll never get him away from the buffet table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...