Ghoolie Verses Hoorta - The stage is set
-
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.
-
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.
After zero touchdowns and nine points in two games, this is just beautiful.
You must have missed the 4th FG last night.
-
@boo-fagley said:
And evidently Watson is a Bust.
Sarcasm? If not, I'm not sure how you get there.
-
@boo-fagley said:
And evidently Watson is a Bust.
I counted 4 sacks when I turned it off. They must have counted 1 as a run.
Under the Ghoolie Theory of Quarterback Dynamics, no QB can ever get any better than he is in his first game as a rookie. Ergo....you must be correct....a QB who is sacked 4 times will always be sacked 4 times in every game the rest of his career.
-
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.
Whelp, the evidence seems to be rolling in.
Cincinnasty may be taking the place of the J-e-t-s as the weekly stooge in my survivor pool, at least during bye weeks.
-
@boo-fagley said:
And evidently Watson is a Bust.
I counted 4 sacks when I turned it off. They must have counted 1 as a run.
Under the Ghoolie Theory of Quarterback Dynamics, no QB can ever get any better than he is in his first game as a rookie. Ergo....you must be correct....a QB who is sacked 4 times will always be sacked 4 times in every game the rest of his career.
Under the Ghoolie Theory of Quarterback Dynamics, no QB can ever get any better than he is in his first game as a rookie. Ergo....you must be correct....a QB who is sacked 4 times will always be sacked 4 times in every game the rest of his career.
Not only that, the Butterfingers Bungles dropped a couple room service interceptions, one of which would have been a certain TD.
Ah, those Bunglin' Bungles. Getting beat at home by a rookie QB making his first start, missing 1\2 his offensive players. The awesomeness of those Stripers!!! But of course Ghoolie knows you can't win (Texans) with defense. NOT!!!
-
@boo-fagley said:
And evidently Watson is a Bust.
I counted 4 sacks when I turned it off. They must have counted 1 as a run.
Under the Ghoolie Theory of Quarterback Dynamics, no QB can ever get any better than he is in his first game as a rookie. Ergo....you must be correct....a QB who is sacked 4 times will always be sacked 4 times in every game the rest of his career.
Under the Ghoolie Theory of Quarterback Dynamics, no QB can ever get any better than he is in his first game as a rookie. Ergo....you must be correct....a QB who is sacked 4 times will always be sacked 4 times in every game the rest of his career.
That totally makes sense if you think about it. Just mull it over a few, the ghoolie genius eventually makes its way through if you add collinear infinite multidimensional theory.
Follow.....theres infinite deshaun watsons on infinite earths. Cut to the chase, somewhere...in some dimension....nigga gettin sacked. We can throw away the dimensions where the texans are winning the superbowl with watson as qb as "inconsequential outliers".....per the ghoolie inconvenience theorem.
So now we can add all the diminsions together where watson sucks as proof he sucks and will always suck here on this earth. It rather simple i dont know why so many of u struggle with it.
-
️
-
YAWN.
Yeah, I know you've been wrong so much- it must get boring. Per NFL.com "Mix Dalton's poor play with a remade offensive line that struggled to block in both run and pass, and a muddled backfield rotation, and you get a limp offense." So now you gonna tell me that substandard bunch of fatasses "just need time to gel" as an excuse wrongo dongo?
After zero touchdowns and nine points in two games, this is just beautiful.
LOL, it's got to be the offensive coordinator's fault- not that they let Whitworth and Zeitler walk- the Bungles just fired Zampese.
-
I am not even reading your horseshit.
The Bengals had a great OL last year? Good, they only won 6 games - They stunk.
The Bengals OL now stinks? They will still win 6 games, most likely 2 against the Browns.
Nothing to see here. Offensive Linemen are a dime-a-dozen.
The Cleveland Browns have the hardest hit players in the NFL -
So because they only won 6 games because of deficiencies other than o line, be ause u know...its a team sport....that means ol is useless eh? If we could only get ghoolie into our FO somehow i feel like maybe the browns next year could revolutionize the sport by putting 10 wr's and 1 qb on the field. We can just start putting flags on people and sayonara CTE right?
-
I am not even reading your horseshit.
The Bengals had a great OL last year? Good, they only won 6 games - They stunk.
The Bengals OL now stinks? They will still win 6 games, most likely 2 against the Browns.
Nothing to see here. Offensive Linemen are a dime-a-dozen.
I am not even reading your horseshit.
The Bengals had a great OL last year? Good, they only won 6 games - They stunk.
The Bengals OL now stinks? They will still win 6 games, most likely 2 against the Browns.
Nothing to see here. Offensive Linemen are a dime-a-dozen.
Yup, when I'm dead wrong- I just ignore the proof I'm wrong. You are SO full of shit. You started the damn thread, you pompous asshole. So how's your crap taste when it gets shoved back in your face? Dime a dozen, my ass. And that's according to every GM and scout in the NFL on top of it. Repeat after me, a great OL can make a poor QB look good. A lousy OL can make a great QB look bad. A great defense can win games, if not Super Bowls if their offense stinks.
You said 11-5 Trollie- because of their great skill players. How fast you forget the crap you post. Alzheimer's setting in? You can send me a bottle of Hennessey now. Send me another one when Joe Thomas gets his name called for Canton.
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