PFF: Offensive Line Ranked 2nd for 2017
-
I dont buy into this whole PFF OL ranking thing, as it is not a true rating of the "line as a unit".....and is instead a math equation of the individual rating for each player.....and it does not account for a massive hole at RT.....which, as we learned last season with the center position, can nullify good line play from others(including HOFers)......also, PFF scores are cumulative and tend to go down as the season progresses....yet, they give Tretter a high rating for playing only 7 games......(which isnt a legitimate score, sorry_
So.....no score for RT and a slanted score at center and still ranked #2?.....ridunkulous
Heres an example.....you could have 5 players, each with a PFF score of 70.....making your line rating 350 pts
or....you could have 2 guys at 90, 2 guys at 50.....and 1 at 60....getting the same 350 pts.....
So, which is better.....the one with 5 equally rated "average players"....or the one with 2 stars and 3 dogs...?
-
I got a knocking rod.
LOL!
-
So....here is a debate....is it better to have a golden boy QB....ala Andrew Luck....and to have a shit OL in front of him? (Indy ranked #22)....or to have a stolid OL...and have a mediocre QB behind them?
Luck has been on the shelf a lot due to injury....because he gets piss poor protection. The Browns may have a good OL...but who the fuck is going to play QB decently?
So....here is a debate....is it better to have a golden boy QB....ala Andrew Luck....and to have a shit OL in front of him? (Indy ranked #22)....or to have a stolid OL...and have a mediocre QB behind them?
Luck has been on the shelf a lot due to injury....because he gets piss poor protection. The Browns may have a good OL...but who the fuck is going to play QB decently?
Much better to have Andrew Luck and a crappy offensive line, than to have the circus rotation of rejects the Browns have had at QB and an awesome O-Line.
Better to have an average QB and a great line than either of these... And better still to have an awesome QB and and an average line.
-
So....here is a debate....is it better to have a golden boy QB....ala Andrew Luck....and to have a shit OL in front of him? (Indy ranked #22)....or to have a stolid OL...and have a mediocre QB behind them?
Luck has been on the shelf a lot due to injury....because he gets piss poor protection. The Browns may have a good OL...but who the fuck is going to play QB decently?
Much better to have Andrew Luck and a crappy offensive line, than to have the circus rotation of rejects the Browns have had at QB and an awesome O-Line.
Better to have an average QB and a great line than either of these... And better still to have an awesome QB and and an average line.
Much better to have Andrew Luck and a crappy offensive line, than to have the circus rotation of rejects the Browns have had at QB and an awesome O-Line.
Better to have an average QB and a great line than either of these... And better still to have an awesome QB and and an average line.
I wonder how muvh our "awful" o lines have ruined what may have been very serviceable qb's. Im not saying we had brady on our team and didnt know it
-
Much better to have Andrew Luck and a crappy offensive line, than to have the circus rotation of rejects the Browns have had at QB and an awesome O-Line.
Better to have an average QB and a great line than either of these... And better still to have an awesome QB and and an average line.
I wonder how muvh our "awful" o lines have ruined what may have been very serviceable qb's. Im not saying we had brady on our team and didnt know it
I wonder how muvh our "awful" o lines have ruined what may have been very serviceable qb's. Im not saying we had brady on our team and didnt know it
We had Couch and I'm pretty sure he would've at least been Andy Dalton caliber with some help around him.
The right way to build a team is to not neglect any area. You don't have to be AWESOME EVERYWHERE, but you need at least okay everywhere and awesome in some respects.
-
It's not about what you can put on paper.Paper starts dumpster fires. It's about what performance shows up on the field as a unit.Than what OL depth is behind that. Pound the damn rock with a defense that allows us to hang around on scoreboard. oops (damn it's still june)
-
I dont buy into this whole PFF OL ranking thing, as it is not a true rating of the "line as a unit".....and is instead a math equation of the individual rating for each player.....and it does not account for a massive hole at RT.....which, as we learned last season with the center position, can nullify good line play from others(including HOFers)......also, PFF scores are cumulative and tend to go down as the season progresses....yet, they give Tretter a high rating for playing only 7 games......(which isnt a legitimate score, sorry_
So.....no score for RT and a slanted score at center and still ranked #2?.....ridunkulous
Heres an example.....you could have 5 players, each with a PFF score of 70.....making your line rating 350 pts
or....you could have 2 guys at 90, 2 guys at 50.....and 1 at 60....getting the same 350 pts.....
So, which is better.....the one with 5 equally rated "average players"....or the one with 2 stars and 3 dogs...?
I dont buy into this whole PFF OL ranking thing, as it is not a true rating of the "line as a unit".....and is instead a math equation of the individual rating for each player.....and it does not account for a massive hole at RT.....which, as we learned last season with the center position, can nullify good line play from others(including HOFers)......also, PFF scores are cumulative and tend to go down as the season progresses....yet, they give Tretter a high rating for playing only 7 games......(which isnt a legitimate score, sorry_
So.....no score for RT and a slanted score at center and still ranked #2?.....ridunkulous
Heres an example.....you could have 5 players, each with a PFF score of 70.....making your line rating 350 pts
or....you could have 2 guys at 90, 2 guys at 50.....and 1 at 60....getting the same 350 pts.....
So, which is better.....the one with 5 equally rated "average players"....or the one with 2 stars and 3 dogs...?
This sums up my thoughts on the matter in a much more coherent way than l am capable of saying. And Tour's comment ahout how they need to gel.
They gotta work well as a unit, and quite frankly some of them are new to each other. They gotta figure out how to block together, how not to step on each others' feet, and how hard they like a pat on the ass.
it's like Voltron. They might individually be badasses in their own lion robots, but when coming together if they don't know if they are the left leg or the right arm, shit gets fucked up.
-
I dont buy into this whole PFF OL ranking thing, as it is not a true rating of the "line as a unit".....and is instead a math equation of the individual rating for each player.....and it does not account for a massive hole at RT.....which, as we learned last season with the center position, can nullify good line play from others(including HOFers)......also, PFF scores are cumulative and tend to go down as the season progresses....yet, they give Tretter a high rating for playing only 7 games......(which isnt a legitimate score, sorry_
So.....no score for RT and a slanted score at center and still ranked #2?.....ridunkulous
Heres an example.....you could have 5 players, each with a PFF score of 70.....making your line rating 350 pts
or....you could have 2 guys at 90, 2 guys at 50.....and 1 at 60....getting the same 350 pts.....
So, which is better.....the one with 5 equally rated "average players"....or the one with 2 stars and 3 dogs...?
I dont buy into this whole PFF OL ranking thing, as it is not a true rating of the "line as a unit".....and is instead a math equation of the individual rating for each player.....and it does not account for a massive hole at RT.....which, as we learned last season with the center position, can nullify good line play from others(including HOFers)......also, PFF scores are cumulative and tend to go down as the season progresses....yet, they give Tretter a high rating for playing only 7 games......(which isnt a legitimate score, sorry_
So.....no score for RT and a slanted score at center and still ranked #2?.....ridunkulous
Heres an example.....you could have 5 players, each with a PFF score of 70.....making your line rating 350 pts
or....you could have 2 guys at 90, 2 guys at 50.....and 1 at 60....getting the same 350 pts.....
So, which is better.....the one with 5 equally rated "average players"....or the one with 2 stars and 3 dogs...?
You're right about the PFF methodology on this, but I'd much rather have a hole at RT than C.
-
So when you come to see that the offense again is dump and dink and our QBs get killed.............. will you once again moan that the OL is the problem?
I have news for you taint sniffers, this OL will be as shitty as the 2016, 2015, etc. have been. Why?
NO FIVE MEN CAN BLOCK EIGHT MEN.
Without offensive playmakers to keep the oppsing D honest, they will again not bit on play fakes, and play close to the LOS. This OL will fare no better than the others we have had, and those OLs have been fine.
-
Ghoolie, our 5 guys couldnt block 4 and sonetimes struggled with 3 man rushes, they were pretty far from "fine". What team ever had to rush 8 men to get to a clev qb? Way overkill to rush that many, borders on cruel and unusual
-
But can five men block eight men?
Why will no one address this?
Surely there must be someone available to pound and grind this point into the fucking ground every God damn thread... Preferably in ALL CAPS.
-
My wish for this season: the 6th and 7th blockers [Njoku and DeValve] will do better work in both pass&run than we've had the last 3 years.
Those are the spots where our blocking has consistently failed -- the line wasn't great last year but even with Mack/Schwartz it was the non-OL perfecting the Ole blocks which torched our stats.
-
Ghoolie, our 5 guys couldnt block 4 and sonetimes struggled with 3 man rushes, they were pretty far from "fine". What team ever had to rush 8 men to get to a clev qb? Way overkill to rush that many, borders on cruel and unusual
Ghoolie, our 5 guys couldnt block 4 and sonetimes struggled with 3 man rushes, they were pretty far from "fine".
Good luck Clev...I've tried...he has a mental block when it comes to how bad our OL has been since Mack's been gone.
He's so fixated on black Tarkenton and our QB situation that he can't see trying to fix the rest of the mess.
In my mind's eye I can still see the replay of a nose tackle faking left and jumping right, and right by Erving, untouched, tear-assing at the QB...who jumped straight to the ground. - That's how bad our OL was.
Now, the new guys on the OL are NOT rookies. They're a know quality. So, in theory, they should be able to gel with the existing guys in relatively short order. So again, in theory, the OL should be talented enough to support the skill players now. The OL will not however, turn hamburg into steak.
-
The OL is the frame of the car... the chassis...
The OL whole can either be greater than the sum of the parts... or less than. We've proven the latter; time to work on the former. But with the exception of RT we know we now have the parts... all the parts. And y'all just have to trust me for now that we have the RT, too.
-
But can five men block eight men?
Why will no one address this?
Surely there must be someone available to pound and grind this point into the fucking ground every God damn thread... Preferably in ALL CAPS.
But can five men block eight men?
Why will no one address this?
Surely there must be someone available to pound and grind this point into the fucking ground every God damn thread... Preferably in ALL CAPS.
5 men could cock block 8 men, provided those 8 men were trying to get laid in no more than 5 locations.
-
So....here is a debate....is it better to have a golden boy QB....ala Andrew Luck....and to have a shit OL in front of him? (Indy ranked #22)....or to have a stolid OL...and have a mediocre QB behind them?
Luck has been on the shelf a lot due to injury....because he gets piss poor protection. The Browns may have a good OL...but who the fuck is going to play QB decently?
So....here is a debate....is it better to have a golden boy QB....ala Andrew Luck....and to have a shit OL in front of him? (Indy ranked #22)....or to have a stolid OL...and have a mediocre QB behind them?
Luck has been on the shelf a lot due to injury....because he gets piss poor protection. The Browns may have a good OL...but who the fuck is going to play QB decently?
I debated with you when Luck was drafted. I said then that Luck would get fucked up because he holds on to the ball too long. No offensive line can protect a QB who holds on to the ball. He's accurate, but no OL can protect this guy.
-
Well,
look man, I am Happy that you guys are happy. Finally, this horseshit debate, of which you are all on the wrong side of the argument is going to be resolved. YOu are all saying that finally we have the OL we need.
So, if as you say the OL is so important, our shit QBs will magnificently turn into winners, we will have a potent offense and win a lot of games.
However, as you are going to see, the Browns 2017 offense will be worse than the 2016 version and this OL will look horrendous. No five men, not the greatest HOF fatasses of all time can make a difference in this horseshit team. No QB, WRs, TEs and a thin RB corps guarantee another year of dink and dump offense.
Either way, the debate over this OL bullshit will be resolved. Just don't come back here after 2- 14 +/- 1 win, I don't want to fucking hear.....
The OL needs fixed, it just was not the O line we thought.
You got the fucking line you want. You got black Tarkenton. If I am wrong, I'll eat corw. If you are wrong, you can eat your fatass OL talk.
The Cleveland Browns have the hardest hit players in the NFL -
Well,
look man, I am Happy that you guys are happy. Finally, this horseshit debate, of which you are all on the wrong side of the argument is going to be resolved. YOu are all saying that finally we have the OL we need.
So, if as you say the OL is so important, our shit QBs will magnificently turn into winners, we will have a potent offense and win a lot of games.
However, as you are going to see, the Browns 2017 offense will be worse than the 2016 version and this OL will look horrendous. No five men, not the greatest HOF fatasses of all time can make a difference in this horseshit team. No QB, WRs, TEs and a thin RB corps guarantee another year of dink and dump offense.
Either way, the debate over this OL bullshit will be resolved. Just don't come back here after 2- 14 +/- 1 win, I don't want to fucking hear.....
The OL needs fixed, it just was not the O line we thought.
You got the fucking line you want. You got black Tarkenton. If I am wrong, I'll eat corw. If you are wrong, you can eat your fatass OL talk.
I'll eat crow, pie, cake, 3 cheeseburgers, 1 large pizza, full rack of ribs, box of cookies, family size bag of Ruffles, 32 wings, gallon of ice cream, a dozen tacos, whatever is left on the plate of whoever I eat with, 6-pack of Coke, box of Ding Dongs, 6 foot sub and a salad.
Fixed it for ya ^
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login