riggofan wrote:Just curious, but why do people keep writing about our "porous o-line" this season? We've allowed 1.8 sacks per game to date (last year that number was 2.7). Which is oddly the same number that Dallas has allowed with its highly praised, three first rounders offensive line. 1.8 is middle of the pack in the NFL this year and ahead of New England, Arizona, KC, Green Bay, San Francisco, Chicago, etc;
Not saying we have a great line - and I'm sure you could dig into those numbers more looking at QB pressures or whatever. Its just looked to me so far this year like the line needs to be doing a better job in the run game, opening up holes for Morris rather than having problems with being "porous".
Thoughts?
I understand what you are saying, but much of the reason for the 1.8 sacks/game is due to Cousins' superfast release. People can say a lot of things about Cousins, but no one can deny he has a quick trigger. I also have come to believe Gruden designs quick passing plays due to our inability to protect the QB.
We also need depth at OL. Case in point:
http://www.rantsports.com/nfl/2014/10/06/morgan-moses-misses-block-kirk-cousins-gets-mauled-by-cliff-avril/ . TWilliams seems to get hurt every game, our RT is not adequate. We have 2 below average OGs. I am good with Licht at C. The big question I had regarding the infamous Morgan Moses play: why didn't Compton come in at RT? Moses is LITERALLY (and I mean this 100%) the worst OT I have ever seen in the NFL. He was horrendous in preseason and worse (if that could even happen) in real games. The very fact he made the team shows what bad shape we are in OL-wise.
Personally, I think our greatest needs are OBVIOUSLY on the defensive end, but quality OTs are gone by the mid-second round (if that). Quality DEs are gone by the end of the 2nd or mid-3rd depending on draft depth. You can get a quality DB/CB via FA or in the mid-rounds (like Sherman) if you are smart and have a good front office. I am of the belief we will have a pick in the 3-7 range (but, of course, a total guess so don't go killing me for a prediction), giving us 3 VERY good, impact player selections with the 3-7, 35-39, and 67-71 overall picks. A combination (depending on round and "best available" at the time of pick) of OT, PASS RUSHING DE (although I'd like some size to him -- without sacraficing speed -- like 280+; and yes, I know that is hard to come by), and DB would be nice with those picks. We could also try to sign another CB via FA (or swap the draft DB, sign CB scenario). If we were able to upgrade at the DE, DB, and CB positions as well as get a quailty DC, our DEF would improve fairly significantly IMHO. I honestly think that Breeland and Amerson are good SUPPLEMENTAL players, but they can't be relyed on consistently. We need a guy that can hang with top receivers.
With our current front office, I'd be hesitant to draft a DE in the first only because a player's success at DE is reliant on a number of factors outside their immediate control (and skill). A mediocre DE can appear very good and drum up solid stats due to scheme, support, talent on other end of DL, OFF play calling, college conference, schedule, even weather... I don't have the confidence in our front office to understand true value at the position and be meticulous enough to see thru the murkiness of DE evaluation. IMHO, it is one of the most difficult positions to grade. OT, on the other hadn, is a MUCH easier position to grade out -- as are CB and DB. That being said, I'd much prefer we draft a DE. FA signings like Haynesworth, Stubbfield, Wilkinson, Jason Taylor, Bruce Smith, Carriker, and Daniels (off the top of my head; I'm sure there are more) still haunt me.
RIP Sean Taylor. You will be missed.
