Yeah, not trying to troll here.
You know what always struck me as a bad Redskins offensive line? Or may be it was just a crappy QB?
But I can recall Jeff George prior to the snap, literally looking at each defensive lineman to try and determine which guy was about to kick his ass and plant him into the ground.
Forget looking at the safeties to try and determine coverage, or the receivers in motion, that guy was all about self-preservation. Now THAT was a bad O-line.
And as Boone said, my beliefs about the O-line aren't just my own. Many analysts, reporters and coaches echo the same thoughts. That's why it strikes me as so strange when I see our fans go against what these others believe so strongly.
Finally, I think I've reported one post in ten years. And that wasn't even a complaint. It was more of "Wow, does this guy have serious anger issues or what?"
The mods and owners here have many better ways to spend their time than responding to reported posts all day, so I respect that.
I believe that when someone goes off on somebody that it usually says a lot more about the person who's going off.
McD5...I have followed your probes at the o-line issue with interest over the course of many mos. there are times when thoughtful ideas are presented. however, it is my belief that..aside from the constancy of it all, some folks react in unexpected forms for the same reasons I do:
1) the argument generally takes the form of random links; there is no argument...just randomly presented ideas...that you then reframe as evidence
2) a true framework for assessing o-line effectiveness has never really been presented; instead...the links and the data highlighted are often "cherry picked"; again, they don't add up to an end-to-end argument. which, IMO, is one reason there has been difficulty convincing a broad swath of the community
3) getting back to framework...which is where many of my questions arise......presenting a single statistic on...say....the Oakland Raiders record and sacks allowed...and advancing that as a supporting evidence is not solid argument IMO. countervailing stats can easily be found. again...cherry picking.
4) it's not a mystery that outcomes reflect multiple causes. a solid argument would begin with a description of what those interacting variables are, how they should be weighted, what the actual factors have been for our team. precisely because multiple factors are in play, it is likely the case that reasoning by analogy to other teams (on the basis of one or two stats) really is inappropriate. it certainly leaves a lot of maneuvering room for questioning any conclusions. I think there are openings for you to make a stronger case. but that has to be organized....not scattershot.
5) the argument you are trying to make - that the o-line isn't top flight but isn't the dregs either - is advanced in very ambiguous terms. I can't tell what you are arguing: it's not that bad; it's middle of the pack; teams can win w/mediocre lines/lose w/good lines; it needs some upgrades but nothing radical; it's considered a mid-tier o-line by the media; it's considered a mid-tier o-line by other NFL organizations; it has performed mid-tier over the last several years......what are you arguing? what standard/framework is the assessment based on?
6) it's not fair, but some do question the conclusions precisely because of previous posts in other areas (specifically Gruden) because Jay voiced exactly the same idea you have been advocating soon as he arrived. some may/are questioning objectivity. there is also the matter of other agendas...specifically QBs - I allow a lot of space here since we are all tapped into that discussion at various emotional levels.
7) There is no getting around what many of us have seen on the field over the course of several years. we have seen the pocket collapse quickly and often; we have seen guards easily bullrushed; we have seen the line physically handled at the line of scrimmage at first/second/third and goal more than once; we have seen complete breakdowns in pass blocking assignments....it's all been there. we have all seen it...over and over.
8) there is no getting around the symbolism of how we have drafted and pursued FAs over the last many years - they all demonstrate concern over the quality of the o-line both starting and depth. it's a priority for the upcoming draft - with the caveat that there is concern over quality/value of the pool relative to the position we are selecting from.
in the end, while it may be interesting to wonder how the o-line compares to other teams...I think that largely misses what we need to focus on:
- does the o-line accomplish what this team needs to succeed?
- is this o-line built in accordance with the offensive scheme/concept/vision?
- does this o-line have smart, talented athletes or not?
- how does the o-line compare relative to the defenses we play? has that unit been a core strength or not? is that unit capable at both run game and pass game?
It's good that you are presenting a pov that doesn't follow received opinion. supporting that opinion in a convincing fashion is the challenge.
 }})
) but no one called you a troll. What I see is, the more we vehemently disagree with a 'take', the more likely we are to see it as 'trolling'. What I don't like is members getting singled out and name-called because they have a contrarian view, whether it's McD5, tr1, or anyone else. That's what happens on *other sites* and if/when it happens to you, it doesn't feel like a 'community'.
