Ghoolie Verses Hoorta - The stage is set
-
@boo-fagley said:
The Patriots were not winning shit with Drew Bledslow.
He held the ball too long and stood back there like a statue. They had David Patten and Troy Brown for WRs,The 28th ranked run game. When Bledsoe went out and Brady came in it was like a whole new team.
When the Browns get their guy at QB it will be the exact same.
OK....when is that going to be?
-
@boo-fagley said:
I did not bring up Elite all time. You did and if you go back and read what you posted it is right there in black and white.
No argument was changed. My statement remains the same. Its all about the QB. Its all about the QB in big games. The 2000 Ravens might be the exception to that rule, but they also might not be since Kerry Collins was not good enough to beat the Ravens defense. Frauds slip in there from time to time. Collins, Grossman, maybe even Kapernick.
The Patriots have nothing to do with this board. I am also a Browns fan and have adopted the Browns as a 2nd NFL team. I have tentative plans to see the Browns vs Bears this season in Chicago. The discussion here is about the Browns QB situation. THE most important player on the team bar none.
Im in no corner at all. Luck has a bad career and would be exposed in the AFC North. He has made a living off Jacksonville, Houston and Tennessee. Luck should make a sizable donation to those cities as an expression of gratitude. Brady has more good games than bad. Luck has more bad games than good.
Its about the QB. You can build the dream team and the QB can screw it all up.
I really hate to talk bad to people, especially ones I don't know and could be a genius for all I know, but you really can't be this dense can you? If you are one of these people that just tries to start stuff then bravo, but I can't tell and you really just come off as being out in outer space. You say the discussion here is about the Brown's QB situation. WRONG. The discussion started as OL. Your FIRST post in THIS thread was as follows, " The Amish Jim Plunkett is always out of something. WRs, RBs, Defense and now its the OL. If you put a Pro Bowl squad around Lucky he could probably win something." So how exactly is that about the BROWNS QB situation?
I did use the word elite because having an elite QB does help things greatly. QB is the most important position on the field, no argument from me there, and nowhere did I say differently. BUT BUT BUT, there are teams that have won or made Super Bowls with average to below average QB's. You see, that is where Tom Brady and the Patriots come up. But better yet, lets use the 2 best QB's in the NFL today, and the 2 best QB's in history as examples. Tom Brady is 5-2 in Super Bowls, in 16 seasons so he went to the Super Bowl 44 % of the time. Joe Montana was 4-0 in Super Bowls, in 16 seasons so he went to the Super Bowl 25 % of the time. Aaron Rodgers is 1-0 in the Super Bowl in 12 seasons, so he has been to Super Bowl 9 % of the time.
Do you know what this tells everyone except you apparently, IT'S NOT JUST THE QUARTERBACK. If it were, like was said before, then these guys would be there every year. Everyone already knows what your answer is going to be, "well of course you need more, the rest of the team has to help the QB, or they had a bad game." But when you wanted to put someone down (who I don't like either), it was ALL Luck's fault "36% passer rating" even though the defense gave up 42 points, well that was Luck's fault to. So Luck isn't allowed to have bad games.
And sorry to inform you, but you did change the argument. First it was virtually all Super Bowl teams had to have QB's good enough to win to get to the Super Bowl. Well when it was shown to you these QB's that don't factor into your "virtually" then you spiraled to Dilfer won before Kerry Collins was a bust, blah blah blah. IT DOESN"T MATTER HOW SOMEONE PLAYED IN THE SUPER BOWL, you see for everyone else on planet earth, getting there means what happened BEFORE/PREVIOUSLY.
This whole dumbass thing started because I said your statement was both smart and dumb. Now it has just turned into dumb.
Now if you want to just be a fan, that is good that is what you should do, but please don't try to act like you know exactly how the game of football works and why things work the way they do, and who is important and who isn't. I will pretty much GUARANTEE you lose that argument every time. Now good day my friend
I really hate to talk bad to people, especially ones I don't know and could be a genius for all I know, but you really can't be this dense can you? If you are one of these people that just tries to start stuff then bravo, but I can't tell and you really just come off as being out in outer space.
Appreciate the effort, Gunz... as futile as it was.
Right in front of your nose. Peyton Manning retires, and his team goes to shit. Manning gets shitcanned by the COlts, and they try to win with Luck and have Shit luck. And you need only to look to your on team. The Browns were horrible under Mike Phipps....enter Brian Sipe in 1976 as the starter. Same OL, Same D, he took the same shit team to 9 wins.
It is all about the QB. It always has been and always will be. Only Browns fans believe otherwise.
Not that facts matter, but...
The Colts went 11-5 Luck's first three years losing in the playoffs, in order, the Wild Card, the Div Champ and the Conf Champ. The past two years they've gone 8-8.
The '76 Browns featured two new OGs, Adams and Jackson, and RT Darrow started all 14 games after missing half the '75 season. So factually you are wrong about the OL.
The '76 Browns' D saw:
- one DL change, the return of Joe Jones to the lineup;
- two LB changes, the addition of Gerald Irons at ROLB who in turn bumped Babich inside;
- and then there's the 2ndary which saw a couple changes, but only one needs mentioning... the return of Thom Darden who missed the entire '75 season.
I feel safe in saying you were O-fer two...
Look, man... just quit talking out your ass... quit making shit up, and we can continue the discussion... otherwise I'm out. I have better things to do than fact check you.
Yes, Sipe was an upgrade to Phipps because as much as anything Sipe was a leader. But as Gip said above there's more to winning than just the QB. I don't look at 22 positions. I look at six facets of the game:
- QB
- Receiving Corps (incl TEs)
- RBs
- OL
- D
- STs
While the list overall is in no particular order, the QB is at the top for a reason. It is also the only single-occupant facet on the list. That is how important it is... but it is not everything.
Teams cannot win with bad QB play, but conversely great QB play does not guarantee success. Teams can't be bad in any facet of the game and succeed.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
@boo-fagley said:
Relax, I dont care when the Rain Men yell names at me and want to argue.
Oh, boy, I cannot believe that I have explain all this, but here it goes. The OP, Ghoolie, in post # 1 sets up the debate QB or OL. # 9 post of the 1st page Ghoolie comments on the Cinci QB. # 18 post on the 1st page Hoorta brings in Andrew Luck. Later, Ghoolie states that "you are not winning shit without a QB" Everything is all right there for review. The whole premise of the thread has gone right over your head since you cannot fathom why this all relates to the Browns QB situation. I am not going to explain how the QB ties in with the Browns vacancy at the position.
Its just plain stupid. You gave us a list of all Super Bowl QBs. If the thread is not about QBs, then why did you dig up the list? Rodgers has played better and worse. Brady has played better and worse.
I have already produced facts on Andy Luck in this thread. Go back and read them ALL instead of being stuck on 1 game. If you do not realize that the AFC South sucks, then there is no point in bringing up Luck anymore. All 3 teams in Lucks division have been looking for a QB. Luck has been the best in the AFCS because all the other QBs have sucked. Mariota might be something.
Look Coach, Im not here for trouble. I have no desire to respond to all your other dumb BS.
If the Browns are going to be serious competitors in the AFCN they have to find a Ben like QB.
Yes the argument was OL or QB. Obviously everyone in their right mind knows that QB is the most important position, the point is that every QB (whether terrible to elite) needs a supporting cast to ultimately be successful. That is the point I was trying to make and that you were seemingly trying to ignore. If you cannot realize by now that my argument had nothing to do with how the thread started or the intent of it then I am sorry, I must not have articulated it in the right way. If you take every postional group in the sport and ask what I would want my best player to be it would be the QB. He is certainly the most important position on the field 10 fold. And I brought up the list because of the "virtually" comment that you had made, to show that championships can be won or competed for without a great or elite QB.
I despise quite a few teams in the NFL from ways players etc have acted when on those teams, also by rivalries and what some family members allegiance lies with. Half of my family are all diehard Cowgirl fans. Only Cowboy I can like is Zeke. But I hate Andrew Luck way more. It is the same reason that I dislike everyone's favorite son here Lebron James. It is all the hype before the player has done a thing. And Lebron is 100 times better than Andrew Luck will ever be.
But when you were talking about the Patriots/Colts championship game, you were throwing ALL the loss on Andrew Luck. The Colts lost because New England was a lot better. They lost by the margin because Luck was bad and the defense was bad.
So yes to sum it all up, QB IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POSITION, TEAMS CAN WIN WITHOUT A GREAT QB AT TIMES, ANDREW LUCK IS OVERRATED BUT ISN"T THE WHOLE REASON THEY HAVEN'T WON A RING, AND THE BROWNS NEED A GOOD TO ELITE QB.
Now have a great day and good luck to the Pats this year, even though they certainly don't need it
P.S.- I know Peyton Manning has been brought up in this thread and how much he had dropped off in production the last year and a half of his career and not being reason they won the Super Bowl. While Denver's defense did play a huge part in the win, PM had more to do that just stats, he was so cerebral on the football field that can't be qualified into stats. He had a lot to do with the win as well. Osweiler probably wouldn't have won the SB.
-
PM had more to do that just stats, he was so cerebral on the football field that can't be qualified into stats. He had a lot to do with the win as well. Osweiler probably wouldn't have won the SB.
Now...THERE is an interesting point. Could the Broncos have won that Super Bowl on the strength of their defense IF Peyton could not have gotten back on the field and the Broncos had to go with the Big B.O.During the regular season the two just about split duties:Peyton was 7-2 as starter.B.O. was 5-2Peyton had fewer than 300 more passing yards....2249 to 1967Peyton had fewer TD passes: 9 vs. 10 for B.O.Peyton had a LOT more Ints: 17 to only 6 for B.O.Peyton had a 67.9 QB rating to 86.4 for B. O.Peyton did take fewer sacks. 16 to 23 for B.O.So...for the regular season, B.O. gets about as much credit for the Broncos success as Peyton.But, when push came to shove and in the playoffs, Peyton was there. In the three games of the playoffs including the SB Peyton either outperformed or played pretty evenly with Ben R. and Tom Brady and Cam Newton.Could B.O. have done the same in the playoffs? Questionable, certainly.And from what I can tell....B.O. didn't even make an appearance...even in mopup in any of those playoff games. Boxscores show at least that he did not throw a single pass.
-
I really hate to talk bad to people, especially ones I don't know and could be a genius for all I know, but you really can't be this dense can you? If you are one of these people that just tries to start stuff then bravo, but I can't tell and you really just come off as being out in outer space.
Appreciate the effort, Gunz... as futile as it was.
Right in front of your nose. Peyton Manning retires, and his team goes to shit. Manning gets shitcanned by the COlts, and they try to win with Luck and have Shit luck. And you need only to look to your on team. The Browns were horrible under Mike Phipps....enter Brian Sipe in 1976 as the starter. Same OL, Same D, he took the same shit team to 9 wins.
It is all about the QB. It always has been and always will be. Only Browns fans believe otherwise.
Not that facts matter, but...
The Colts went 11-5 Luck's first three years losing in the playoffs, in order, the Wild Card, the Div Champ and the Conf Champ. The past two years they've gone 8-8.
The '76 Browns featured two new OGs, Adams and Jackson, and RT Darrow started all 14 games after missing half the '75 season. So factually you are wrong about the OL.
The '76 Browns' D saw:
- one DL change, the return of Joe Jones to the lineup;
- two LB changes, the addition of Gerald Irons at ROLB who in turn bumped Babich inside;
- and then there's the 2ndary which saw a couple changes, but only one needs mentioning... the return of Thom Darden who missed the entire '75 season.
I feel safe in saying you were O-fer two...
Look, man... just quit talking out your ass... quit making shit up, and we can continue the discussion... otherwise I'm out. I have better things to do than fact check you.
Yes, Sipe was an upgrade to Phipps because as much as anything Sipe was a leader. But as Gip said above there's more to winning than just the QB. I don't look at 22 positions. I look at six facets of the game:
- QB
- Receiving Corps (incl TEs)
- RBs
- OL
- D
- STs
While the list overall is in no particular order, the QB is at the top for a reason. It is also the only single-occupant facet on the list. That is how important it is... but it is not everything.
Teams cannot win with bad QB play, but conversely great QB play does not guarantee success. Teams can't be bad in any facet of the game and succeed.
Appreciate the effort, Gunz... as futile as it was.
Not that facts matter, but...
The Colts went 11-5 Luck's first three years losing in the playoffs, in order, the Wild Card, the Div Champ and the Conf Champ. The past two years they've gone 8-8.
The '76 Browns featured two new OGs, Adams and Jackson, and RT Darrow started all 14 games after missing half the '75 season. So factually you are wrong about the OL.
The '76 Browns' D saw:
- one DL change, the return of Joe Jones to the lineup;
- two LB changes, the addition of Gerald Irons at ROLB who in turn bumped Babich inside;
- and then there's the 2ndary which saw a couple changes, but only one needs mentioning... the return of Thom Darden who missed the entire '75 season.
I feel safe in saying you were O-fer two...
Look, man... just quit talking out your ass... quit making shit up, and we can continue the discussion... otherwise I'm out. I have better things to do than fact check you.
Yes, Sipe was an upgrade to Phipps because as much as anything Sipe was a leader. But as Gip said above there's more to winning than just the QB. I don't look at 22 positions. I look at six facets of the game:
- QB
- Receiving Corps (incl TEs)
- RBs
- OL
- D
- STs
While the list overall is in no particular order, the QB is at the top for a reason. It is also the only single-occupant facet on the list. That is how important it is... but it is not everything.
Teams cannot win with bad QB play, but conversely great QB play does not guarantee success. Teams can't be bad in any facet of the game and succeed.
Yes, Tom (Ghooie) has never let facts get in the way of a good rant....
-
PM had more to do that just stats, he was so cerebral on the football field that can't be qualified into stats. He had a lot to do with the win as well. Osweiler probably wouldn't have won the SB.
Now...THERE is an interesting point. Could the Broncos have won that Super Bowl on the strength of their defense IF Peyton could not have gotten back on the field and the Broncos had to go with the Big B.O.During the regular season the two just about split duties:Peyton was 7-2 as starter.B.O. was 5-2Peyton had fewer than 300 more passing yards....2249 to 1967Peyton had fewer TD passes: 9 vs. 10 for B.O.Peyton had a LOT more Ints: 17 to only 6 for B.O.Peyton had a 67.9 QB rating to 86.4 for B. O.Peyton did take fewer sacks. 16 to 23 for B.O.So...for the regular season, B.O. gets about as much credit for the Broncos success as Peyton.But, when push came to shove and in the playoffs, Peyton was there. In the three games of the playoffs including the SB Peyton either outperformed or played pretty evenly with Ben R. and Tom Brady and Cam Newton.Could B.O. have done the same in the playoffs? Questionable, certainly.And from what I can tell....B.O. didn't even make an appearance...even in mopup in any of those playoff games. Boxscores show at least that he did not throw a single pass.
Now...THERE is an interesting point. Could the Broncos have won that Super Bowl on the strength of their defense IF Peyton could not have gotten back on the field and the Broncos had to go with the Big B.O.
Peyton did take fewer sacks. 16 to 23 for B.O.So...for the regular season, B.O. gets about as much credit for the Broncos success as Peyton.That's one thing about Manning that's really significant late in in his career- he was probably the best I've ever seen at knowing when he was going to get hit, and dive into the fetal position to avoid getting killed instead. By the time the Broncos played in his last Super Bowl, his arm was so shot- it makes Kessler look like a rocket launcher by comparison.
-
if you think the OL and DL aren't what builds championship teams then you don't know shit about football. the QB,,,,,HA!
jim plunkett. jeff hostetler. trent dilfer.
GTFO of here.
the bottle of rum is gonna taste mighty good come next january.
-
Great QBs can covers for a bad or mediocre line. We have seen that with the Colts. The question is, is Andy Dalton great, I say no, so I would say that their offense won't be better, because Dalton will have to play quicker, and be more cerebral and I don't see Dalton doing that. If he were Manning or Brady, they could suffer the OL losses and still play at a high level, Dalton isn't Manning or Brady.
-
Great QBs can covers for a bad or mediocre line. We have seen that with the Colts. The question is, is Andy Dalton great, I say no, so I would say that their offense won't be better, because Dalton will have to play quicker, and be more cerebral and I don't see Dalton doing that. If he were Manning or Brady, they could suffer the OL losses and still play at a high level, Dalton isn't Manning or Brady.
Great QBs can covers for a bad or mediocre line. We have seen that with the Colts. The question is, is Andy Dalton great, I say no, so I would say that their offense won't be better, because Dalton will have to play quicker, and be more cerebral and I don't see Dalton doing that. If he were Manning or Brady, they could suffer the OL losses and still play at a high level, Dalton isn't Manning or Brady.
Thank you, thank you for your nuanced and cogent insight! Oi!
-
@boo-fagley said:
The Jets had a great OL and lost.
The Jets had a great DL and lost
Because the Steelers and the Colts perhaps had better OLs and DLs at the time.
When Parcells was in Dallas he built a solid team all around. Good in the trenches. Dallas still lost with no QB.
When Parcels was in NY with the Giants he beat the Bills in the Super Bowl. The Giants ran the ball and controlled the clock to keep the ball out of Kellys hands.
So, you are saying that Jeff Hostetler was a premier QB and that Tony Romo was not? And that made all the difference?
You made my point, actually. Sometimes it is NOT all about the QB.
Sanchez was better than BR that day...but not overall...but the better QB that day lost.
Kelly was a better overall QB than Hostetler...yet the better overall QB lost. (would have to check on "that day" stats)
Sometimes the other 21 guys on the field have a lot to say about the outcome of a game. As I said. Sometimes.
-
@boo-fagley said:
Relax, I dont care when the Rain Men yell names at me and want to argue.
Oh, boy, I cannot believe that I have explain all this, but here it goes. The OP, Ghoolie, in post # 1 sets up the debate QB or OL. # 9 post of the 1st page Ghoolie comments on the Cinci QB. # 18 post on the 1st page Hoorta brings in Andrew Luck. Later, Ghoolie states that "you are not winning shit without a QB" Everything is all right there for review. The whole premise of the thread has gone right over your head since you cannot fathom why this all relates to the Browns QB situation. I am not going to explain how the QB ties in with the Browns vacancy at the position.
Its just plain stupid. You gave us a list of all Super Bowl QBs. If the thread is not about QBs, then why did you dig up the list? Rodgers has played better and worse. Brady has played better and worse.
I have already produced facts on Andy Luck in this thread. Go back and read them ALL instead of being stuck on 1 game. If you do not realize that the AFC South sucks, then there is no point in bringing up Luck anymore. All 3 teams in Lucks division have been looking for a QB. Luck has been the best in the AFCS because all the other QBs have sucked. Mariota might be something.
Look Coach, Im not here for trouble. I have no desire to respond to all your other dumb BS.
If the Browns are going to be serious competitors in the AFCN they have to find a Ben like QB.
Yes the argument was OL or QB. Obviously everyone in their right mind knows that QB is the most important position, the point is that every QB (whether terrible to elite) needs a supporting cast to ultimately be successful. That is the point I was trying to make and that you were seemingly trying to ignore. If you cannot realize by now that my argument had nothing to do with how the thread started or the intent of it then I am sorry, I must not have articulated it in the right way. If you take every postional group in the sport and ask what I would want my best player to be it would be the QB. He is certainly the most important position on the field 10 fold. And I brought up the list because of the "virtually" comment that you had made, to show that championships can be won or competed for without a great or elite QB.
I despise quite a few teams in the NFL from ways players etc have acted when on those teams, also by rivalries and what some family members allegiance lies with. Half of my family are all diehard Cowgirl fans. Only Cowboy I can like is Zeke. But I hate Andrew Luck way more. It is the same reason that I dislike everyone's favorite son here Lebron James. It is all the hype before the player has done a thing. And Lebron is 100 times better than Andrew Luck will ever be.
But when you were talking about the Patriots/Colts championship game, you were throwing ALL the loss on Andrew Luck. The Colts lost because New England was a lot better. They lost by the margin because Luck was bad and the defense was bad.
So yes to sum it all up, QB IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POSITION, TEAMS CAN WIN WITHOUT A GREAT QB AT TIMES, ANDREW LUCK IS OVERRATED BUT ISN"T THE WHOLE REASON THEY HAVEN'T WON A RING, AND THE BROWNS NEED A GOOD TO ELITE QB.
Now have a great day and good luck to the Pats this year, even though they certainly don't need it
P.S.- I know Peyton Manning has been brought up in this thread and how much he had dropped off in production the last year and a half of his career and not being reason they won the Super Bowl. While Denver's defense did play a huge part in the win, PM had more to do that just stats, he was so cerebral on the football field that can't be qualified into stats. He had a lot to do with the win as well. Osweiler probably wouldn't have won the SB.
While Denver's defense did play a huge part in the win, PM had more to do that just stats, he was so cerebral on the football field that can't be qualified into stats. He had a lot to do with the win as well. Osweiler probably wouldn't have won the SB.
Agree.. Manning channeled his vast playoff experience and tailored his game to his Broncos' situation. He went into full game-manager, first-do-no-harm mode. Osweiler would likely have been a deer in the headlights... especially in their 2nd playoff game when Bill would have been at the wheel.
In the 2015 playoffs he attempted 92 passes and threw only one pick... and only 2 TDs. He completed 51... a 55.4% clip. All his stats 2015 were well below his career averages in the playoffs.
Yes, it can be argued that his "diminished skill set" had a lot to say about the change in his approach, but I choose to recognize his awareness of his total circumstance.
-
I don't get the repeated and repeated Jets/Sanchez referrals.
In Sanchez's two postseasons, '09 and '10, with the Jets he posted very good numbers... especially when you consider they came in his first two seasons in the league. He did not become the butt of jokes until later in his career.
6 games... 4-2... 95 of 157... 60.51%... 1155 yds... 9 TD... 3 INT... 94.3 rating
All were better than regular season postings. He did have ball security issues that don't show in the above stat line, but again in the playoffs he was much better with only 2 fumbles in the 6 games.
One other factor to consider is coaching... NYJ gave birth to one of the most toxic HCs in the history of this game. Ranks right up there with his daddy...
-
@boo-fagley said:
The Jets had the better OL in 2009.http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2009
Better than what? Maybe Not better than the Steelers front 7 in that game. I didn't check the rushing stats for that game for the Jets....I just know that the Steelers ran over the Jets defense. (ran...not passed)
Ranked 6th in rushing, 70% success rate rushing. Passing ranked 23rd and Sanchez sacked 30 times. I wont even bother to look at Sanchezs turnovers because the number is putrid.
In that game vs. the Steelers there is nothing to look at....because he had -0- turnovers. Ben R. had several...yet Ben Rs team won.
Again.....the fact is, in a few games here....that one in particular it was NOT all about the QB....but about the other 21 players.
Again...is this something you are not getting about that game (a game you brought up).
OLs no good and to blame. No, it is not. A Bad QB made 4 - 1st round pick OLs look like shit.
Again...NOT in that game...Steelers game.
Colts ranked # 1 in passing protection. 13 sacks. Its the Great OL. No, it is not. A Great QB got rid of the ball and made his OL look good.
If we are talking about the AFC title game vs. the Colts. Sure, absolutely...Peyton outshined Sanchez....but not because Sanchez was bad....but because Peyton was great.
-
@boo-fagley said:
The Jets played the Colts in the 2009 AFCC
The Jets played the Steelers in the 2010 AFCC
If you would like to go over the 2010 Steeler OL then fine. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010
But you come out worse. The Jets had the better OL. The Steelers were 29th in pass blocking and 19th in run blocking.
Not sure I know, nor care what point it is that you are trying to make.
My simple point is that sometimes the other 21 guys on the field have far more to do with winning and losing than does the QB.
That day....the Steelers HOF caliber QB had a shitty day....and the now scorned/joke jock QB for the Jets had a very fine day.....yet, the Steelers won....because their other 21 guys outplayed the Jets other 21 guys.
Jets had the better overall OL? Fine. They did a good enough job to allow Sanchez to have a good game.
But clearly SOME other aspect of the Steelers allowed them to win...other than the play of their QB that day.
That's all.
-
OK Larry, unless I am mistaken, this should be a great year for us to once again reprise the are OL fatasses a dime-a-dozen, or are they hard-to-come-by athletes who determine if a QB is successful or not?
FIRST
If I understand you correctly, your feelings are that with the loss of veteran Linemen, the Bengals offense, especially Andy Dalton is going to suffer, and be far less effective. I honestly don't follow OL at all. I seriously have ADD on this topic based on my knowledge that the individual players are all interchangeable.
Fun thing to watch #1 - I believe the Bengals will have a more explosive offense in 2017 than they did in 2016, and may be unstoppable. They added pizazz at RB and WR, which are far, far more important than some 300 pound, clumsy fatasses.
However.........if OL men are as important as you say, then the Bengals O should struggle.
SECONDLY
According to most here the Browns have assembled a great OL, and by your philosophy should translate into a remarkably better offense. This end of it is a little harder to quantify because we probably will have a better starter in Ass-Oiler than we did with RG3 and Kessler. Kizer potentially coming in has a tremendous upside, so the Browns OL performance may have very little to do with an improved offense by way of a better QB.
This is the hard thing about football analyses. There are too man variables sometime to really get a cause-and-effect picture. I think in Cincy though, you are out on a limb. They lost integral OL, and by your measure the offense is going to struggle. I don't believe they will miss the fatasses, and I think their O will be improved.
Let's see who is right.
OK Larry, unless I am mistaken, this should be a great year for us to once again reprise the are OL fatasses a dime-a-dozen, or are they hard-to-come-by athletes who determine if a QB is successful or not?
FIRST
If I understand you correctly, your feelings are that with the loss of veteran Linemen, the Bengals offense, especially Andy Dalton is going to suffer, and be far less effective. I honestly don't follow OL at all. I seriously have ADD on this topic based on my knowledge that the individual players are all interchangeable.
Fun thing to watch #1 - I believe the Bengals will have a more explosive offense in 2017 than they did in 2016, and may be unstoppable. They added pizazz at RB and WR, which are far, far more important than some 300 pound, clumsy fatasses.
However.........if OL men are as important as you say, then the Bengals O should struggle.
Yes Oline is important, first team since 1939 Eagles to not score a TD in their first 2 games of the season.
-
OK Larry, unless I am mistaken, this should be a great year for us to once again reprise the are OL fatasses a dime-a-dozen, or are they hard-to-come-by athletes who determine if a QB is successful or not?
FIRST
If I understand you correctly, your feelings are that with the loss of veteran Linemen, the Bengals offense, especially Andy Dalton is going to suffer, and be far less effective. I honestly don't follow OL at all. I seriously have ADD on this topic based on my knowledge that the individual players are all interchangeable.
Fun thing to watch #1 - I believe the Bengals will have a more explosive offense in 2017 than they did in 2016, and may be unstoppable. They added pizazz at RB and WR, which are far, far more important than some 300 pound, clumsy fatasses.
However.........if OL men are as important as you say, then the Bengals O should struggle.
SECONDLY
According to most here the Browns have assembled a great OL, and by your philosophy should translate into a remarkably better offense. This end of it is a little harder to quantify because we probably will have a better starter in Ass-Oiler than we did with RG3 and Kessler. Kizer potentially coming in has a tremendous upside, so the Browns OL performance may have very little to do with an improved offense by way of a better QB.
This is the hard thing about football analyses. There are too man variables sometime to really get a cause-and-effect picture. I think in Cincy though, you are out on a limb. They lost integral OL, and by your measure the offense is going to struggle. I don't believe they will miss the fatasses, and I think their O will be improved.
Let's see who is right.
OK Larry, unless I am mistaken, this should be a great year for us to once again reprise the are OL fatasses a dime-a-dozen, or are they hard-to-come-by athletes who determine if a QB is successful or not?
FIRST
If I understand you correctly, your feelings are that with the loss of veteran Linemen, the Bengals offense, especially Andy Dalton is going to suffer, and be far less effective. I honestly don't follow OL at all. I seriously have ADD on this topic based on my knowledge that the individual players are all interchangeable.
Fun thing to watch #1 - I believe the Bengals will have a more explosive offense in 2017 than they did in 2016, and may be unstoppable. They added pizazz at RB and WR, which are far, far more important than some 300 pound, clumsy fatasses.
However.........if OL men are as important as you say, then the Bengals O should struggle.
Yes Oline is important, first team since 1939 Eagles to not score a TD in their first 2 games of the season.
-
Yeah- those guys at nfl.com don't know diddly doo.
Cincinnati Bengals: They finish with a worse record than last season (6-9-1).
This hasn't happened since 2010, the year of the T.O.-Ochocinco marriage. So what gives? It's not because of the wide receiver group, which should be just fine with A.J. Green and rookie John Ross. No, the issue on offense is the offensive line, a group that didn't play particularly well last season. That group lost its two top players (Kevin Zeitler and Andrew Whitworth) during the offseason, which doesn't bode well for the skill positions. Sure, Ross boasts a tremendous 40 time, but by the time he gets downfield, Andy Dalton could very well be on his back. Many draftniks touted second-round selection Joe Mixon as a steal. But he won't be if he's running through some of the same holes Jeremy Hill saw last season. Cincinnati missed Hue Jackson's guidance on offense last season. Leadership on defense has been lacking. Wins could be similarly rare.
hey don't know as much as I do. hat is the point. THe Bengals OL was not an issue. They will make a run for the division title. 11- 5
They don't know as much as I do. That is the point. THe Bengals OL was not an issue. They will make a run for the division title. 11- 5
Lololol!!! Had to peruse your ranting earlier. They'll need to go 11-3 to make that prediction come true. Make that 11-2 after they get beat in Green Bay a week from Sunday. I gave you an over\under of 10.5 wins Zaya vs Hennessy VSOP still interested? Easier to see 10 losses than 10 wins.
So now you just yawn when you're wrong? Dalton is up shit creek if Green gets hurt. & How 'bout that Ross (he of 4.2 speed) fumbling the ball to Javedon Clowney? Apparently sat the rest of the game out with a bruised ego. Too funny. JJ Watt was beating their fatass Oju- boo-boo like a drum.
-
@boo-fagley said:
I had to turn that shit show off.
I mean, the commentators were trying to build up a 3 -3 game like its being played at the north pole. Sure seemed like Watson was sacked more than 3 times.
Yeah both teams played like shit. Seems like Ghoolie is already wrong. Bengals look like shit. They are getting well deserved boos.
-
OK Larry, unless I am mistaken, this should be a great year for us to once again reprise the are OL fatasses a dime-a-dozen, or are they hard-to-come-by athletes who determine if a QB is successful or not?
FIRST
If I understand you correctly, your feelings are that with the loss of veteran Linemen, the Bengals offense, especially Andy Dalton is going to suffer, and be far less effective. I honestly don't follow OL at all. I seriously have ADD on this topic based on my knowledge that the individual players are all interchangeable.
Fun thing to watch #1 - I believe the Bengals will have a more explosive offense in 2017 than they did in 2016, and may be unstoppable. They added pizazz at RB and WR, which are far, far more important than some 300 pound, clumsy fatasses.
However.........if OL men are as important as you say, then the Bengals O should struggle.
SECONDLY
According to most here the Browns have assembled a great OL, and by your philosophy should translate into a remarkably better offense. This end of it is a little harder to quantify because we probably will have a better starter in Ass-Oiler than we did with RG3 and Kessler. Kizer potentially coming in has a tremendous upside, so the Browns OL performance may have very little to do with an improved offense by way of a better QB.
This is the hard thing about football analyses. There are too man variables sometime to really get a cause-and-effect picture. I think in Cincy though, you are out on a limb. They lost integral OL, and by your measure the offense is going to struggle. I don't believe they will miss the fatasses, and I think their O will be improved.
Let's see who is right.
OK Larry, unless I am mistaken, this should be a great year for us to once again reprise the are OL fatasses a dime-a-dozen, or are they hard-to-come-by athletes who determine if a QB is successful or not?
FIRST
If I understand you correctly, your feelings are that with the loss of veteran Linemen, the Bengals offense, especially Andy Dalton is going to suffer, and be far less effective. I honestly don't follow OL at all. I seriously have ADD on this topic based on my knowledge that the individual players are all interchangeable.
Fun thing to watch #1 - I believe the Bengals will have a more explosive offense in 2017 than they did in 2016, and may be unstoppable. They added pizazz at RB and WR, which are far, far more important than some 300 pound, clumsy fatasses.
However.........if OL men are as important as you say, then the Bengals O should struggle.
SECONDLY
According to most here the Browns have assembled a great OL, and by your philosophy should translate into a remarkably better offense. This end of it is a little harder to quantify because we probably will have a better starter in Ass-Oiler than we did with RG3 and Kessler. Kizer potentially coming in has a tremendous upside, so the Browns OL performance may have very little to do with an improved offense by way of a better QB.
This is the hard thing about football analyses. There are too man variables sometime to really get a cause-and-effect picture. I think in Cincy though, you are out on a limb. They lost integral OL, and by your measure the offense is going to struggle. I don't believe they will miss the fatasses, and I think their O will be improved.
Let's see who is right.
After zero touchdowns and nine points in two games, this is just beautiful.
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