• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

A Look at the Positive - Ryan Torain

Bulldog's Twin said:
Then Freeman was finally able to exploit that matchup with McIntosh/Fletcher on Winslow.

It was bound to happen eventually.

.
Click to expand...


I am no McNabb apologist, but I have to say the play calling in the second half didn't help and for whatever reason, the line created HUGE holes for Torain but could not protect McNabb.

That does not excuse the fade pattern to Roydell. While a curious call, Roydell had the man beat by a narrow margin if McNabb had thrown the ball where it needed to be. That's the one pass that I remember. It was as bad as any fade Campbell threw.
 
MikeSr619 said:
for right now and the sake of having something positive to hold on to Im going to stick with act I and be happy for it. he did damn fine and its a shame his coach didnt ride him like a thuroughbred.
Click to expand...

Sarge mentioned it Mike. Torain was in his first game back from injury. He worked hard in the first half.
 
Bulldog's Twin said:
The Redskins to be fair hit a team with a relatively light front seven that played its safeties deep. McCoy left after a shoulder injury in the first half.

Washington was not up against a top 10 defensive front.

We will see what happens against Dallas next week. That will be a truer test for the OL, especially for Rabach and Lichtensteiger inside who are only 289 and 295.
Click to expand...

Houston has the "thinnest" line in the NFL, and Arian Foster has been enormous this season. Size has nothing to do with it in this scheme.
 
Bulldog's Twin said:
We will see what happens against Dallas next week. That will be a truer test for the OL, especially for Rabach and Lichtensteiger inside who are only 289 and 295.
Click to expand...


That is on par for a Shannahan coached line. In Denver, almost all of his interior linemen were below 300lbs. He needs quicker more athletic lineman, for the ZBS, not the maulers that Skins fans are used to seeing.
 
the Omniscient said:
That is on par for a Shannahan coached line. In Denver, almost all of his interior linemen were below 300lbs. He needs quicker more athletic lineman, for the ZBS, not the maulers that Skins fans are used to seeing.
Click to expand...

And exactly what they have in Houston (Kubiak is a Shanahan disciple).
 
duane brown: 6'4" 312 (T)
wade smith: 6'4" 296 (G)
chris myers: 6'4" 295 (C)
mike brisiel: 6'5" 300 (G)
eric winston: 6'7" 316 (T)

not exactly a midget o-line down there in Tx

oh...and while the correlation isn't perfect....size equates to strength....there are big guys who are both quick and strong. helps with pass blocking and running.
 
Uhh, fansince, they are the thinnest line in the NFL. As in, the lowest average weight. Its not my opinion, its math. :)
 
Lanky Livingston said:
Uhh, fansince, they are the thinnest line in the NFL. As in, the lowest average weight. Its not my opinion, its math. :)
Click to expand...



thinest? what...their starters are each 6 inches wide?

I don't care about average weight...and truth be told...the real argument behind this is silly since there is a huge difference between O-lines 10-15 yrs ago and current lines: they're all getting bigger so the point about smaller & quicker has some qualifications....does it not?

my point is that this is not a small ("thin") line. those are big guys......

Roadhouse: "Opinions vary"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For comparison's sake, take a look at the Saints & Jets OLs:
Bushrod: 6'5 315
Nicks: 6'5 343
Goodwin: 6'3 318
Evans: 6'4 318
Stinchcomb: 6'5 315

Ferguson: 6'6 310
Slauson: 6'5 315
Mangold: 6'4 307
Moore: 6'3 305
Woody: 6'3 327
 
Lanky Livingston said:
For comparison's sake, take a look at the Saints & Jets OLs:
Bushrod: 6'5 315
Nicks: 6'5 343
Goodwin: 6'3 318
Evans: 6'4 318
Stinchcomb: 6'5 315

Ferguson: 6'6 310
Slauson: 6'5 315
Mangold: 6'4 307
Moore: 6'3 305
Woody: 6'3 327
Click to expand...


yes...every line in the NFL is getting bigger relative to 10 years ago. I see your point.


ok...so when I see a post I usually ask myself: "what does this mean analytically? what assertion is being made and how can it be used to advantage?" far as I can tell...the real change in Houston over the last several years has been at the RB position. in fact, their running attack has been a constant source of frustration until this year. I also note that the best running teams in the league seem to follow bigger lines (e.g., carolina, minny, etc.). yes...we're talking abt ZBS....which I have already noted has no fixed rule since even those lines have been getting bigger. if your point is that a "thin" line like Houston's demonstrates an o-line doesn't have to be relatively monstrous...ok! I counter that all other things being equal (e.g., IQ, motivation)...a bigger, quicker line is better....especially when one desires competency in both in pass blocking and running.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Houston led the league in passing offense last season, with the same OL. And two years ago, Steve Slaton had almost 1300 yards (at the time the franchise record).

Also, the Denver OLs Shanahan (and Kubiak) had consistent success with in the running games were always smaller than the rest of the league.
 
Lanky Livingston said:
Houston led the league in passing offense last season, with the same OL. And two years ago, Steve Slaton had almost 1300 yards (at the time the franchise record).

Also, the Denver OLs Shanahan (and Kubiak) had consistent success with in the running games were always smaller than the rest of the league.
Click to expand...

neither team (Houston or Denver) won squat in what...for as long as Houston has existed and Denver since the late 1990s - losing hand there. and Houston since its inception has been working overtime to fix its running game. it's running game is comparatively recent......

you're pinning your ears on one example! I'll take the the teams with the bigger, quicker o-lines every time. small eventually loses out to big and fast...just like our long-standing argument over receivers. notice last Sunday how absolutely pathetic Armstrong's downfield blocking was? look at the clips: he's a kid among men when it comes to run blocking....not much use. and for an offense whose strategy appears to be to search out which foot to shoot next...that weakness becomes part of the problem...not part of the solution.
 
the problem with our Oline is not that they are thin,(comparatively) its that they are not tall and thin, look at houstons Oline and where they are "weak" and look at ours. Rabach is not 6-4 and 290 I think in real life he might be 6-2 and he is not strong for his size nor is he particularly quick. Lick looks seriously weak as well, there is a reason he didnt get drafted very high.(oh thats right not at all lol)

our best lineman for this scheme oddly enough is probably BMW who is massive but very light on his feet and mobile for such a huge guy. and I think both he and trent Williams will be great in this scheme once they learn the nuances.

Fansince is correct about one very important axiom, good big always beats good small and average big more often than not beats good small on the line, its simple physics. Smaller players get tired from being ground down all game and by the end the bigger player has an easier time of it. on Oline tho teams just get bigger and bigger and the mobility gets better and better. On Dline the body types have changed a lot too.

for instance, I was reading a book called the physics of football, they explained that in the seventies a 40 time for a lineman could be as high as 5.5 and back then there was only 1 300 pound olineman listed in the league a 5.5 now would be sloooow and guys are as much as 350 running that speed!
 
fansince62 said:
neither team (Houston or Denver) won squat in what...for as long as Houston has existed and Denver since the late 1990s - losing hand there. and Houston since its inception has been working overtime to fix its running game. it's running game is comparatively recent......

you're pinning your ears on one example! I'll take the the teams with the bigger, quicker o-lines every time. small eventually loses out to big and fast...just like our long-standing argument over receivers. notice last Sunday how absolutely pathetic Armstrong's downfield blocking was? look at the clips: he's a kid among men when it comes to run blocking....not much use. and for an offense whose strategy appears to be to search out which foot to shoot next...that weakness becomes part of the problem...not part of the solution.
Click to expand...

LOL. Armstrong was downfield blocking on Torain's 54-yarder, and extended it by 10-20 yards. On a day when Torain rushes for over 175 yards, you're complaining about downfield blocking???

I'm through arguing with you, because you truly will never be satisfied with anything the Skins do on the field; and you will find something wrong (whether its actually there or not) with everything. You argue just to argue, and I don't want any part of it. :)
 
Lanky Livingston said:
You argue just to argue, and I don't want any part of it. :)
Click to expand...

fs62, I agree with Lanky here mainly because of your own admission.:bucktooth:

But Lanky, you will argue with him again. You've said this numerous times before and here we are! :kick_can: All it's gonna take is one of his rants for you to get worked up and you will chime in! :psych:

I love this place! Ryman, we haven't gone at it in almost a week! What can we argue about today? :movefast:
 
Lanky Livingston said:
LOL. Armstrong was downfield blocking on Torain's 54-yarder, and extended it by 10-20 yards. On a day when Torain rushes for over 175 yards, you're complaining about downfield blocking???

I'm through arguing with you, because you truly will never be satisfied with anything the Skins do on the field; and you will find something wrong (whether its actually there or not) with everything. You argue just to argue, and I don't want any part of it. :)
Click to expand...

yawn.

I watched the clips dude. Armstrong can't block and often avoids it.

edited in deference to the high esteem and abiding love we all feel for Lanky!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NVM. Moving on...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fansince62 said:
yawn.

I watched the clips dude. Armstrong can't block and often avoids it.
Click to expand...

I disagree that he often avoids it. One thing that Shannahan wants from his recievers is blocking. If they don't want to block, then they do not play. I have been looking on youtube for examples, but they are hard to come by. These are the two examples I have found:

On this one, Williams runs for a 32 yard TD. Without Armstrong's block, he does not make it in.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjulCJlWF7Q[/media]

The next video, go to 6:50 and 7:40. At 6:50 he blocks, not the best, but he does. At 7:40, he levels a guy

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-mH_tyACLM&feature=related[/media]

I am not arguing that Armstrong is a great blocker, far from it. But to say he avoids contact is a bit much.
 
the Omniscient said:
I disagree that he often avoids it. One thing that Shannahan wants from his recievers is blocking. If they don't want to block, then they do not play.

...

I am not arguing that Armstrong is a great blocker, far from it. But to say he avoids contact is a bit much.
Click to expand...

These are the two key points. If Armstrong shied away from contact, or was completely terrible at it, he would not be a Redskin. He is an average to above-average blocker for his position, one of which there are very few guys who are stellar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top