The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

welch wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:Promising observation from Keim. To me, the key thing that he pointed out is the need for cohesion in this scheme. With Kory coming back, hopefully ready to go, cohesion will be basically acheived. Kory will be back with Trent and Monty and Chester and Polumbus played together last year along side Monty. This is not a Super Bowl line, but if the patchwork job that we ended up with last year could finish the season well. This unit, with a quick release QB, can do even better.

And this would be the BEST OL we could muster BEFORE the regular season and the injuries which often come with it during 16-game long gard-fought season?

The weakest unit of the team in my mind. Let's hope for the best (and wait for the next Draft/FA).

Yes, there will be injuries, but we have depth this year. Gettis and LeRibeus get better with each game. Polumbus has gotten better. We have Hurt as experience depth. We do need a tackle to back up Polumbus and Trent - the swing tackle is needed. Looks like Willie Smith stagnated and is not that guy.

Maybe Smith will surprise?

In an interview of the O line coach, he said that Compton and Black had surpassed Smith. Now, that could have been done to motivate White, but since he wasn't getting the playing time that these guys were playing I wouldn't think that that is the case. This was in one of the reports posted on the training camp thread. I can't remember which one. A lot of the media had been wondering about Smith. The O line coach also said that there is an expectation of where a second year tackle should be, but Smith isn't there. My apologies for posting this by memory.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

frankcal20 wrote:We only need a backup LT and either an upgrade at RT or backup.

I agree. If you are talking NEED. My preference would be a starting RT and LG (Lichten.. would be the 1st backup at LG, C, and RG).

Of course we should have addressed that in FA. A starting RT would have been more important than a 3rd or 4th WR for the Skins to sign. We could have taken the money we spent on Morgan to get a RT or LG!

But hey, we will have a WR to throw to (when ever RG3 is upright!)

Alright, Skinsfan. You were right about mobile QBs getting sacked more likely than stationary QBs, but what you didn't figure in and still are not is the quick release of RGIII. John Keim did an analysis of how quick RGIII is getting the ball out, he was Manningesque. He showed where the O line would vave given up a sack or a least a hit, but the quick release made them the line look better in the Bills game. Sometimes a QB like Grossman and Beck make a line look worst then they are and a QB like Peyton make a line looked better than they are.

frankcal20 wrote:We only need a backup LT and either an upgrade at RT or backup.

Spot one here. You have Hurt as a back up guard and may be the starter if Kory can't go. Hurt made due last year and will have to make do for this year. You have two young guards to develop in LeRibeus and Gettis who are showing that they are getting better with each game. Also both play center. We do have Compton for future development.

Polumbus can hold his own, at RT (he did last year), but he is not the guy you want to be your long term starter. We have no immediate depth at LT unless Smith makes a turnaround. I hope he does, but I have readnothing lately that he has improved and I haven't been watched to see how much he played in the Colt game.

Red_One43 wrote:

welch wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:Promising observation from Keim. To me, the key thing that he pointed out is the need for cohesion in this scheme. With Kory coming back, hopefully ready to go, cohesion will be basically acheived. Kory will be back with Trent and Monty and Chester and Polumbus played together last year along side Monty. This is not a Super Bowl line, but if the patchwork job that we ended up with last year could finish the season well. This unit, with a quick release QB, can do even better.

And this would be the BEST OL we could muster BEFORE the regular season and the injuries which often come with it during 16-game long gard-fought season?

The weakest unit of the team in my mind. Let's hope for the best (and wait for the next Draft/FA).

Yes, there will be injuries, but we have depth this year. Gettis and LeRibeus get better with each game. Polumbus has gotten better. We have Hurt as experience depth. We do need a tackle to back up Polumbus and Trent - the swing tackle is needed. Looks like Willie Smith stagnated and is not that guy.

Maybe Smith will surprise?

In an interview of the O line coach, he said that Compton and Black had surpassed Smith. Now, that could have been done to motivate White, but since he wasn't getting the playing time that these guys were playing I wouldn't think that that is the case. This was in one of the reports posted on the training camp thread. I can't remember which one. A lot of the media had been wondering about Smith. The O line coach also said that there is an expectation of where a second year tackle should be, but Smith isn't there. My apologies for posting this by memory.

OK, I found one report on Willie Smith -not the one I was looking for, but I will keep looking:

A few people have asked about Willie Smith. Well, he’s not in anyone’s doghouse. He just hasn’t been good enough to move past those ahead of him. Starting three games last year (and playing in four) didn’t mean he’d automatically improve. Sometimes players stay the same, even with experience (See: Heyer, Stephon). Anyway, Smith had some rough moments today. One occurred vs. Ryan Kerrigan; no shame in that. But it’s also the sort of player he must stop if he wants to win a job. More on Kerrigan in a minute. But Chris Wilson also beat Smith a few times. Wilson is a backup trying to win a roster spot. He’s had a good camp, too, and I’ve always enjoyed him. However, if Smith wants to contend for a starting job he needs to stop this sort of player. Period. Wilson popped into Smith’s shoulder pads on a play and stood him up. A quick throw prevented any real pressure. On the next play Wilson caught Smith leaning over too low after they engaged. Wilson jerked him to the side.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/redskins- ... le/2504849

Still not the Willie Smith article, I am looking for, but I am showing that Willie Smith struggles have not gone unnoticed.

John Keim's Redskins Thoughts

Willie Smith remains eligible for the practice squad. A few weeks ago I wouldn’t have double checked that information because I’d have put him as perhaps the last lineman. But, as of now, he hasn’t exactly stood out nor shown that he’s improved from last season. Because Smith was on the active roster for only seven games last season (and was a free agent) he can still get cut and placed on the Redskins’ practice squad. It’s hard to see him making the final roster based on his performance this summer and those ahead of him. Yes, he had a minor injury in camp. But it came because Rob Jackson steamrolled him in a one-on-one drill, a bad sign. Smith has worked at both left and right tackle. However, he still has trouble reacting to counter moves. Rookie Tom Compton, a sixth-round pick, has worked ahead of him at left tackle. Jordan Black also is a swing tackle and would be the veteran backup teams like if he proves he can still help.

markshark84 wrote:

frankcal20 wrote:We only need a backup LT and either an upgrade at RT or backup.

The way I see it Lich is injury plagued -- he has 0% chance of lasting the whole year. Chester is okay, but could be upgraded. Gettis may be good, but he's a 5th rounder and, IMHO, would be starting if MS thought highly of him. You need 4 good guards in a rotation. LeRibeus is a rookie but projected below Hurt, who isn't solid as it is. Chester should be a good reserve. IMHO, we need another starter and one additional reserve if Gettis doesn't pan out -- which we'll know by seasons end.

We 100% need a starting RT. Polumbus is a fine reserve. Williams is a solid starter. Compton, Lee, Smith aren't serviceable reserves. Thus we need a starter and reserve.

Now please note that these "needs" aren't to make a mediocre OL. This is to make a quality OL. If we want a mediocre line, then all we need is a starting RT -- but winning teams have top OLs. So in my eyes, the team will remain "mediocre" as long as our line is.

I agree with you we have a medicore line that is servicable. However a really good QB and scheme will help but just wait till we play a top defense again you will see why a medicore line will not hold up . We need better depth on o-line it will come if Shanny stays around long enough and we get out of the cap fines.

Irn-Bru wrote:

markshark84 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Our problem isn't that we lack decent starters as it is that we lack good depth. When healthy we have a middle-of-the-pack line. So the upgrade we're looking to get from other teams — and some people other teams cut can make a real improvement to our bench — will be addressing our greatest area of concern on the OL.

Then next year, we work more on the starters.

Honestly, we lack both. At a minimum, we NEED another starting tackle and guard.

"NEED" for what? To be a top-10 offensive line? I agree, but you'll notice that's irrelevant to my post.

We also NEED depth at tackle and guard. Yes, if we were able to pick up 2 solid OLs off waivers (which is 99% unlikely), it would help. Then again, we will be looking thru a pool of the 10th-12th best OL on a particular team; to be our 6th-8th best . Still not a great situation to be in.

And when you are assembling an OL, "health" should always be taken into consideration. Therefore, I don't care about the "when healthy" because in reality, relying on all 5 starters being consistently healthy is unrealistic and shortsighted. When was the last time our 5 starters all played 14+ games in one season? The OL is the most injured position in the NFL. A good GM knows this and assembles their OL using this very principle.

I have no idea what you are going on and on about. Are you talking to me, or just the rabble in general, or are you saying something to me that you'd say to Bruce if you had the chance? Very confusing.

I think its even worse that the state of our OL is an "at best mediocre" scenario

We are not "at best mediocre." We are likely to be mediocre, just like we were last year. Our at best looks something more like the last 5-6 games of last year, in which our line was better than average and pushed around the eventual Super Bowl champs at will. I do not expect that same performance of this line week in, week out, however.

And next year we will work on our starters??? We only have one pick where you will find a clear starter.

Right. And then you turn to trades / FA to look for another. I predict we'll have two new starters next year that were acquired between March and April. We'd have one of them already if it wasn't for the cap penalty, but what can you do about that?

Everyone also knows that franchises don't let their solid OL starters go unless: (1) their old, (2) they want too much money, or (3) they have "issues".

What an overblown statement. You're saying you'd never wander into FA for an offensive guard or tackle and acquire a starter that way? Ridiculous. Just in the last year the Skins could have benefited from bringing in Eric Winston, Demetress Bell, Carl Nicks, or Ben Grubbs. (I don't remember any of the other names floating around in March but there were others that could have replaced one of our current starters.)

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there are very few, if any, NFL teams without an FA starting on the line. The best teams / offensive lines have them, at any rate, which is proof enough of the ridiculousness of this argument.

What I'm really saying is that this franchise has consistently overlooked the OL position and it continues to bit them in the behind.

What I'm saying is the o-line isn't as bad as many seem to think, and right now our biggest issue is with quality depth. With as much as you wrote, one might suspect you were trying to disagree with me, but I'm not so sure of that myself.

You're correct in that a lot of this is just the voicing of my frustrations due to the blatent disregard our FO has given to the OL over the years.

I agree that if we have our 5 starters for 16 games, we'll have a mediocre line, but that is not likely to happen. Because we will need to utilize our reserves, we will have an issue throughout the season. While I would love to have no OL injuries, it's just no realistic and I believe that this was an error in judgement by our GM to not dive into FA this offseason to create depth.

Hopefully my last statement above shows that I am not against going into FA to pick up OL -- especially reserves -- however bookend type OL are generally drafted and stay with their respective team. Sure there are exceptions, but the general rule remains that teams/GMs do what it takes to keep their core OL players for the duration of the productive years of their pro careers. Even the skins did it with Samuels, Jansen, and the hogs.

As such, I will stick to my statement that because of this, we need to DRAFT core OL and use the FA for reserves. AND that there is typically an "issue" with "core OL" that are traded by teams, such as Brown. Therefore, the fact we only have a 2nd round pick is concerning (and I dont' want to again mortgage our future by trading for a first (which team usually over pay for anyway)).

That is mainly what I was saying. A ton of my statement was just a rant and not directed at you -- I am just REALLY sick of the skins disregarding what I consider the heart of the offense (the QB is more the brain).

markshark84 wrote:You're correct in that a lot of this is just the voicing of my frustrations due to the blatent disregard our FO has given to the OL over the years.

The previous regime, our the current? The current FO has drafted plenty of linemen. Many of whom played as rookie last year. A couple who were drafted this year have played heavily during the preseason.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

markshark84 wrote:You're correct in that a lot of this is just the voicing of my frustrations due to the blatent disregard our FO has given to the OL over the years.

The previous regime, our the current? The current FO has drafted plenty of linemen. Many of whom played as rookie last year. A couple who were drafted this year have played heavily during the preseason.

100% the previous, but also the current. I do believe the current FO my understand the importance of the OL, but we haven't seen any solid additions (outside of Williams).

markshark84 wrote:we haven't seen any solid additions (outside of Williams).

I guess solid additions translates to first round picks.

You're correct in that a lot of this is just the voicing of my frustrations due to the blatent disregard our FO has given to the OL over the years.

Well, OK. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, I guess, but I'm still not sure why you thought it was a good idea to do that venting as though it represented a rebuttal of anything I had written.

I agree that if we have our 5 starters for 16 games, we'll have a mediocre line,

Agree with whom? That's not my opinion. I think our offensive line (i.e., starters and backups when needed) will be mediocre this season. We are healthy going into the year in that our projected starters are ready to go. (I'm not counting Brown as I think he will be cut after his PUP status expires, effectively meaning he didn't make the team.)

Provided we have an average season so far as injuries are concerned — i.e., we stay relatively healthy and don't lose 2-3 guys for the whole season — I think we'll be middle-of-the-pack. That is not the same thing as saying we will need all 5 guys to start all 16 games if we are to have any hope of being mediocre. See?

And this unit also has the potential to show flashes of top-10 performances for stretches at a time, like they did at the end of last year. I am less confident that they will do this, but it's not unlikely.

That's my view, which is substantially different than anything I've seen you say.

As such, I will stick to my statement that because of this, we need to DRAFT core OL and use the FA for reserves.

Well the best NFL teams all disagree with you on this point, as I showed in my last post. Go ahead and look them all up: right now I'm not sure there's a single team that doesn't have at least one starter acquired through FA. Using FA only for reserves is a blockheaded strategy that would harm a team, not help it.

But if you soften this position to say that teams should generally draft the players they want on their OL, then I agree. And Bruce Allen agrees too, actually, which is why Trent Williams was the first draft choice of the current FO. That's also why we've taken six linemen in this FO's three drafts, including our first pick one year and our second pick another. As a result, we have better starters and much better depth than we did in Zorn's second season here. It's a work in progress.

Remember that Allen's only been here for three seasons; it's unfair to criticize him for Cerrato's mistakes, which is what you are clearly doing.

Deadskins wrote:

markshark84 wrote:we haven't seen any solid additions (outside of Williams).

I guess solid additions translates to first round picks.

I predict Gettis will be starting next season, he has some great moevement, just needs to smooth some edges.

markshark84 wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

markshark84 wrote:You're correct in that a lot of this is just the voicing of my frustrations due to the blatent disregard our FO has given to the OL over the years.

The previous regime, our the current? The current FO has drafted plenty of linemen. Many of whom played as rookie last year. A couple who were drafted this year have played heavily during the preseason.

100% the previous, but also the current. I do believe the current FO my understand the importance of the OL, but we haven't seen any solid additions (outside of Williams).

I'm sorry sir, but your expectations are unrealistic. They've made plenty of solid additions. They have depth sir. This takes time and if you can't see the progress they've made since coming in, then that's on you.

Every draft pick, and FA isn't going to pan out. But they've won more than they've lost in acquiring good players.

markshark84 wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

markshark84 wrote:You're correct in that a lot of this is just the voicing of my frustrations due to the blatent disregard our FO has given to the OL over the years.

The previous regime, our the current? The current FO has drafted plenty of linemen. Many of whom played as rookie last year. A couple who were drafted this year have played heavily during the preseason.

100% the previous, but also the current. I do believe the current FO my understand the importance of the OL, but we haven't seen any solid additions (outside of Williams).

I'm sorry sir, but your expectations are unrealistic. They've made plenty of solid additions. They have depth sir. This takes time and if you can't see the progress they've made since coming in, then that's on you.

Every draft pick, and FA isn't going to pan out. But they've won more than they've lost in acquiring good players.

Deadskins wrote:

markshark84 wrote:we haven't seen any solid additions (outside of Williams).

I guess solid additions translates to first round picks.

Exactly.

Irn-Bru wrote:

You're correct in that a lot of this is just the voicing of my frustrations due to the blatent disregard our FO has given to the OL over the years.

Well, OK. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, I guess, but I'm still not sure why you thought it was a good idea to do that venting as though it represented a rebuttal of anything I had written.

I agree that if we have our 5 starters for 16 games, we'll have a mediocre line,

Agree with whom? That's not my opinion. I think our offensive line (i.e., starters and backups when needed) will be mediocre this season. We are healthy going into the year in that our projected starters are ready to go. (I'm not counting Brown as I think he will be cut after his PUP status expires, effectively meaning he didn't make the team.)

Provided we have an average season so far as injuries are concerned — i.e., we stay relatively healthy and don't lose 2-3 guys for the whole season — I think we'll be middle-of-the-pack. That is not the same thing as saying we will need all 5 guys to start all 16 games if we are to have any hope of being mediocre. See?

And this unit also has the potential to show flashes of top-10 performances for stretches at a time, like they did at the end of last year. I am less confident that they will do this, but it's not unlikely.

That's my view, which is substantially different than anything I've seen you say.

As such, I will stick to my statement that because of this, we need to DRAFT core OL and use the FA for reserves.

Well the best NFL teams all disagree with you on this point, as I showed in my last post. Go ahead and look them all up: right now I'm not sure there's a single team that doesn't have at least one starter acquired through FA. Using FA only for reserves is a blockheaded strategy that would harm a team, not help it.

But if you soften this position to say that teams should generally draft the players they want on their OL, then I agree. And Bruce Allen agrees too, actually, which is why Trent Williams was the first draft choice of the current FO. That's also why we've taken six linemen in this FO's three drafts, including our first pick one year and our second pick another. As a result, we have better starters and much better depth than we did in Zorn's second season here. It's a work in progress.

Remember that Allen's only been here for three seasons; it's unfair to criticize him for Cerrato's mistakes, which is what you are clearly doing.

I don't like to have back-to-back posts so I was trying to comment on your post while placing my own opinion. And since we obviously have differences in the state of our OL, perhaps it was in the appropriate place.

As far as our OL (w/ reserves) being mediocre -- I place mediocre as being somewhere in the 12-20 range in the NFL. The skins OL last year ranked 30th in run and 29th in pass (from the stats I read, I understand these are open to interpretation). This year most have the skins OL between 25-30. This is not considered mediocre. When compared against the other OLs in the league, I believe this is accurate. Also, we are not healthy -- as you say -- given the fact Lich has been out for the entire preseason, Brown is on the PUP list, and Chester has had preseason injuries. Lich is especially concerning given his injury history, so I'm not sure how you are coming to your conclusions. If we lose Lich and/or Chester (in addition to starting a reserve the entire year), there is no way we stay mediocre -- which is still above what most predict this unit to be. So we'll have to disagree on that.

As far as "flashes of top 10" -- the OL is a unit that should pride themselves on consistency. It's not like the WR or RB position were you only play 50% of the snaps based on the formations.

In terms of the entire NFL disagreeing with the notion that you draft your "core" NFL lineman ---- that statement was based on the fact that most NFL teams do this -- and not that, as you say, all NFL team do the opposite. Perhaps, however, I need to clarify what "core" means because you have taken what I said and turned it into an EXTREME statement that I did not say or mean. When I say core I mean mostly the LT and C (and perhaps a featured G). Core is not all 5 OL starters. I am not sure how you can state that most NFL teams don't draft their best OL and instead opt to acquire via FA. Yes -- as I said previously -- you should find pieces to your OL via the draft this can include one or two starters, but your 10-year LT or C will more likely than not be taken in the draft. Guys like Williams or Samuels or Jansen -- those are guys that are drafted. OL acquired via FA aren't core pieces that will be here long term -- and this OL NEEDS some of those types. And please, this is not a "softened" position, this is how I have felt the entire time but perhaps I wasn't clear on my definition of core.

In terms of the current FO placing more emphasis on the draft, again, I do believe they have, but we still have a below average OL (overall). And I define below average as being ranked 20th or below (which we are). And IMHO, based on the OL the current FO inherited 3 yrs ago, there should have been even more picks made to revamp it. So while I understand the current FO has placed some emphasis on the OL, I think more could have been done (whether FA, draft, or otherwise).

Also, being an individual who prides himself on being objective -- yes, I am punishing the current FO for the problems Snyder/Cerrato created. I am being impatient, but I worry that our current OL will hurt RGIII's ability to develop properly. We need to fix our OL issues as quickly as possible.

markshark84 wrote:As far as our OL (w/ reserves) being mediocre -- I place mediocre as being somewhere in the 12-20 range in the NFL. The skins OL last year ranked 30th in run and 29th in pass (from the stats I read, I understand these are open to interpretation).

What stats were you looking at?

This year most have the skins OL between 25-30.

Who are these people? "Most"?

In terms of the entire NFL disagreeing with the notion that you draft your "core" NFL lineman ---- that statement was based on the fact that most NFL teams do this -- and not that, as you say, all NFL team do the opposite. Perhaps, however, I need to clarify what "core" means because you have taken what I said and turned it into an EXTREME statement that I did not say or mean. When I say core I mean mostly the LT and C (and perhaps a featured G). Core is not all 5 OL starters.

You said that we should draft the OL core and use FA for reserves. I guess 1-2 starting guards and the RT are reserves now?

Look, if you're going to change your definition here then perhaps there is no disagreement. Of course a team has to use the draft to build its foundation on the OL. Just like any other group position (WR, DL, LB, DB, RB).

There's nothing controversial with saying the draft is fundamentally important for building an OL. I was only objecting to your more ludicrous statements. Sounds like that disagreement has disappeared.

I am not sure how you can state that most NFL teams don't draft their best OL and instead opt to acquire via FA.

First, if you can show me the quote where I said that, I'll admit you "win." But I tell you what: please quote the section from my text you had in mind when you wrote this response. I think comparing the two will be telling with respect to the objectivity that is or is not present in this debate.

Irn-Bru wrote:

markshark84 wrote:As far as our OL (w/ reserves) being mediocre -- I place mediocre as being somewhere in the 12-20 range in the NFL. The skins OL last year ranked 30th in run and 29th in pass (from the stats I read, I understand these are open to interpretation).

What stats were you looking at?

This year most have the skins OL between 25-30.

Who are these people? "Most"?

In terms of the entire NFL disagreeing with the notion that you draft your "core" NFL lineman ---- that statement was based on the fact that most NFL teams do this -- and not that, as you say, all NFL team do the opposite. Perhaps, however, I need to clarify what "core" means because you have taken what I said and turned it into an EXTREME statement that I did not say or mean. When I say core I mean mostly the LT and C (and perhaps a featured G). Core is not all 5 OL starters.

You said that we should draft the OL core and use FA for reserves. I guess 1-2 starting guards and the RT are reserves now?

Look, if you're going to change your definition here then perhaps there is no disagreement. Of course a team has to use the draft to build its foundation on the OL. Just like any other group position (WR, DL, LB, DB, RB).

There's nothing controversial with saying the draft is fundamentally important for building an OL. I was only objecting to your more ludicrous statements. Sounds like that disagreement has disappeared.

I am not sure how you can state that most NFL teams don't draft their best OL and instead opt to acquire via FA.

First, if you can show me the quote where I said that, I'll admit you "win." But I tell you what: please quote the section from my text you had in mind when you wrote this response. I think comparing the two will be telling with respect to the objectivity that is or is not present in this debate.

There were a good deal of rankings. I would love for you to find me ONE creditable ranking that shows the 2011-2012 redskin offensive line as being in the 12-20 range. The stats I showed were from numerous NFL websites -- and there were a lot. Since the OL is such a subjective thing, I took a collective average.

Look, I never changed my definition, you just didn't understand it the first time, so I defined it. I believe that even after I defined it, you still may not get it. Here it is again AND IT HAS NEVER CHANGED:::: "Core" = generally the 3 starting OL long term players depending on position and role. Reserves = none starters. Reserves does not mean anyone other than core. There are core lineman, starters, and reserves. I did not think I would need to define non-core starters. I thought you were capable of understanding that/filling in the blanks yourself. Core are found via the draft. Starters can be either. Reserves should be fit in via FA if possible. I can't belive I have to spell it out like this. Did you really think I would lump OL as either key starters or reserves? Get real. Either way, don't insult me by laughing or call my statements ludicrous merely because you don't understand or don't wish to. You just need to understand my definitions. I have never changed my position on anything. So I'm not sure when my "ludicrous" statements disappeared although I would love to know what they were........

All in all I do believe that both of us agree that the OL should be build via the draft -- and use FA when needed because it's impossible to get everything in the draft. Do you not believe this? Is this a "ludicrous" statement"??? I have stated this from the beginning. Our real disagreement isn't about the draft vs. FA, it's the current state of our OL. I consider it top to bottom below average ;- you consider it not that (I'm not even going to get into your wishy washy opinion).

Lastly, here is the quote:
I stated: "As such, I will stick to my statement that because of this, we need to DRAFT core OL and use the FA for reserves".
Your response: "Well the best NFL teams all disagree with you on this point, as I showed in my last post."

Core OL (as I have defined numerous times) are generally acquired via draft. Reserves are typically acquired via late rounds or FA. Because we don't have the picks, we need to acquire via FA. Does this need to be more clear???

Let me also throw trades in the mix. Discuss.

markshark84 wrote:There were a good deal of rankings. I would love for you to find me ONE creditable ranking that shows the 2011-2012 redskin offensive line as being in the 12-20 range.

http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

^^^ I just love it when this happens - great job FFA

Irn-Bru wrote:

markshark84 wrote:There were a good deal of rankings. I would love for you to find me ONE creditable ranking that shows the 2011-2012 redskin offensive line as being in the 12-20 range.

http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

I actually saw this one when I was typing my original response. This ranking is not a true cumulative ranking and is from a cite that boast about how they come up with outside the box type analysis. Which makes sense.... because it goes against almost all the other rankings

Such as:

http://davidgonos.com/fantasy/football/ ... -rankings/

or

http://fantasyfootball.usatoday.com/con ... leid=40484

or

http://www.fftoolbox.com/football/artic ... le_id=1095

or

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1202 ... nsive-line

or

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats? ... &Submit=Go

or

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... es-part-1/

or

http://wp.advancednflstats.com/teamOL.php

There's more, but thought you got the idea. Nice try though.

markshark84 wrote:This ranking is not a true cumulative ranking and is from a cite that boast about how they come up with outside the box type analysis. Which makes sense.... because it goes against almost all the other rankings.

Then they must be incorrect. Imagine! coming up with a different outcome than a fantasy football blogger? It boggles the mind.

Deadskins wrote:

markshark84 wrote:This ranking is not a true cumulative ranking and is from a cite that boast about how they come up with outside the box type analysis. Which makes sense.... because it goes against almost all the other rankings.

Then they must be incorrect. Imagine! coming up with a different outcome than a fantasy football blogger? It boggles the mind.

The stats iru-bru provided were from a blogger........

Maybe I'm wrong but I think it's pretty telling that everything you can find puts the skins OL between 24-27 including sources such as nfl.com. I know the mods all support one another regardless of issue, but come on.

markshark84 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

markshark84 wrote:This ranking is not a true cumulative ranking and is from a cite that boast about how they come up with outside the box type analysis. Which makes sense.... because it goes against almost all the other rankings.

Then they must be incorrect. Imagine! coming up with a different outcome than a fantasy football blogger? It boggles the mind.

The stats iru-bru provided were from a blogger........

Maybe I'm wrong but I think it's pretty telling that everything you can find puts the skins OL between 24-27 including sources such as nfl.com. I know the mods all support one another regardless of issue, but come on.

I'm not a mod.