BGO.C.D. - Offensive

[Boone]

Funny thing is I'm not trying to be positive. I'm not NEARLY as optimistic as you are.

All I'm saying is, objectively speaking, this offense is loaded. That's a fact.

I just don't know if that will translate to actual wins. It tends not to on this team.

Like I said, we'll know what Gruden's made of pretty quickly.

Well, except for the last paragraph of my blog - that's EXACTLY my argument. Truth is - someone around here has to be positive - the doom and gloom kind of takes the fun out of it

 

[Boone]

And the core for a winning franchise starts with the big uglies...on either side of the ball. Yeah, sure...we may flash again and likely win 7-9 games. That's a possibility I don't disagree. But if this team ever wants to win, and be a champion...a few flashy guys on offense are not going to do it. We need an offensive line that will grind out games or we better have the best defense in the league. Our offensive line sucks and I am being objective.

That sounds true Brian. But is it? Do we need to have a dominating OL to win? We won a championship 2 years ago with a far weaker line than we'll start this season with. Didn't stop us from being the top rushing team in the NFL and winning the NFC East. Would I rather have a dominating OL? Yeah. But I'm not sure if you look at the history of post-season success over the past decade that 'best offensive line' is the consistently delineating factor. It's a mantra we all repeat, kind of like 'defense wins championships', but I'm not sure it's actually a fact?

 

[Henry]

And the core for a winning franchise starts with the big uglies...on either side of the ball. Yeah, sure...we may flash again and likely win 7-9 games. That's a possibility I don't disagree. But if this team ever wants to win, and be a champion...a few flashy guys on offense are not going to do it. We need an offensive line that will grind out games or we better have the best defense in the league. Our offensive line sucks and I am being objective.

Yeah. All things being equal build from the lines out. I agree.

I think you are still over-stating the overall state of the offense, though. This ain't the 80s anymore. The Franchise Quarterback is the centerpiece of an offense now, not the OL. These days players like Culter, Rodgers, Roethelisberger ... hell, even Romo ... they all get their teams wins without great lines, or often even good ones. And now, we have a QB like that.

If Griffin is a Franchise QB, in this era and the way offense is played now, we should expect that here. We should expect Our Guy to get Our Team wins without a great line, or even a good one. And that's not even taking into account the two 1300 yards WRs, the 1275 yard RB or the top tier LT that we've got.

Teams set at QB in this day and age don't flash 7 wins. They aren't ecstatic with 8. They EXPECT 8 or more wins every year. And unless Griffin turns out to be a bust, so should we.

If we don't win 8 something is really wrong in the State of Denmark. It's why Shanahan got fired, and why Gruden's leash should be pretty short.

 

[Elephant]

That sounds true Brian. But is it? Do we need to have a dominating OL to win? We won a championship 2 years ago with a far weaker line than we'll start this season with. Didn't stop us from being the top rushing team in the NFL and winning the NFC East. Would I rather have a dominating OL? Yeah. But I'm not sure if you look at the history of post-season success over the past decade that 'best offensive line' is the consistently delineating factor. It's a mantra we all repeat, kind of like 'defense wins championships', but I'm not sure it's actually a fact?

I am not talking about flash in the pan stuff, I am talking about sustained winning. The teams that win consistently, year in and year out, have solid to dominant offensive lines to pair with their franchise QB's. We won with gimmick 2 years ago...gimmick only goes so far. Like I said, I think the ceiling is 8-8 this year, but I was excoriated last year for suggesting 6 was the ceiling last year, so...

 

[Boone]

Obviously, the better OL we have, the easier success will come. That's not exactly a bold statement. We all believe that. I think attributing our 2012 NFC East Championship to a 'gimmick' is sort of outrageous. That 2012 team, lead by a rookie QB no less, reeled off 7 straight wins, including sweeping both Dallas and Philadephia and beating the eventual Super Bowl champion Ravens in OT. We had the 4th ranked offense in the league and the #1 ranked rushing offense (averaging 170 yards per game). Did we overuse the read option? Probably. Did we have poor pass protection? Mostly. But writing it all off as a 'gimmick' - I think that's an epic overstatement. And all that success was just 2 seasons ago. The point of my blog is that we have added significant offensive talent. We have also arguably improved the OL - although they will run different schemes and it will take another season or two to add the additional pieces we need there to be dominant. But I think we will score a huge number of points this year. And it will be the Redskins offense, and how anyone is going to stop it, that sports talking heads will be discussing, not the Eagles offense this year.

I do agree with your overall point, that we need big uglies, and some Pro Bowl big uglies in addition to TW to be the kind of super-solid team that wins 9-10 games consistently and to be perennial Playoff contenders.

 

[Elephant]

Obviously, the better OL we have, the easier success will come. That's not exactly a bold statement. We all believe that. I think attributing our 2012 NFC East Championship to a 'gimmick' is sort of outrageous. That 2012 team, lead by a rookie QB no less, reeled off 7 straight wins, including sweeping both Dallas and Philadephia and beating the eventual Super Bowl champion Ravens in OT. We had the 4th ranked offense in the league and the #1 ranked rushing offense (averaging 170 yards per game). Did we overuse the read option? Probably. Did we have poor pass protection? Mostly. But writing it all off as a 'gimmick' - I think that's an epic overstatement. And all that success was just 2 seasons ago. The point of my blog is that we have added significant offensive talent. We have also arguably improved the OL - although they will run different schemes and it will take another season or two to add the additional pieces we need there to be dominant. But I think we will score a huge number of points this year. And it will be the Redskins offense, and how anyone is going to stop it, that sports talking heads will be discussing, not the Eagles offense this year.

I do agree with your overall point, that we need big uglies, and some Pro Bowl big uglies in addition to TW to be the kind of super-solid team that wins 9-10 games consistently and to be perennial Playoff contenders.

Boone, we had a QB who would have run for 1000 yards had he not been injured, running an option. That is gimmick in the NFL brother. Even though, it was AWESOME to see DeMarcus Ware frozen solid as we ran right past him. I am not discounting the 7 game win streak, that was something achieved through grit and determination...and a defense that stepped up big down the stretch with veteran leadership. It showed we were on the right track, but we stepped back in a big, big way last year because we could not mask the poor quality of the OL...and our defense sucked.

And I agree with your assessment that we have more weapons...on paper, but we all know what "on paper" means.

Like I said, if we win 8, I am happy. It really does mean we are a couple of upgrades away from contending. I just wish we had a better option at OL in the 2nd so we could have taken one instead of Trent Murphy. I like the Murphy pick, but...like others have mentioned, it wasn't an immediate need.

 

[Boone]

Okay - that's pretty reasonable Brian - maybe I just got hung up on the word 'gimmick'. I think we agree more than disagree - the Redskins cannot have Robert running for his life out there, whether it occasionally results in incredible plays, first downs, or even TDs. I think the good news is that Gruden is going to run a much more traditional offense. He's talking about using the read option 5 or 6 times a game. That's a big departure from how we've seen RG3 used previously.

And I agree 'potential' is just that. I'm going to be watching Murphy closely, as well as Moses - as I think those picks HAVE to pan out, and in fact I'm hoping that both prove to be major steals when we look back in 2 or 3 years.

 

[Elephant]

Okay - that's pretty reasonable Brian - maybe I just got hung up on the word 'gimmick'. I think we agree more than disagree - the Redskins cannot have Robert running for his life out there, whether it occasionally results in incredible plays, first downs, or even TDs. I think the good news is that Gruden is going to run a much more traditional offense. He's talking about using the read option 5 or 6 times a game. That's a big departure from how we've seen RG3 used previously.

And I agree 'potential' is just that. I'm going to be watching Murphy closely, as well as Moses - as I think those picks HAVE to pan out, and in fact I'm hoping that both prove to be major steals when we look back in 2 or 3 years.

I like what I am hearing about Murphy from Keim's notes that McD5 has been posting...he is getting upfield disrupting plays a lot.

On the flip side, I am not pleased to hear Moses has been struggling to push for the starting job. I have to remember he's a 3rd round pick who slipped in the draft for a reason, I don't expect much from him...or maybe I do. This is a position I truly believe should have been upgraded with a solid free agent...not bank breaking, but 2nd tier. I find it so disheartening to see Turnstyler in the #1 RT position on this team...too bad too because he's solid in the run. Too bad he's a wet paper bag on pass-pro.