For the 'O-Line over QB' Crowd

[DoTheDew]

Sacks are primarily on the QB and scheme, although Batiste and to a lesser extent Massie (the first few weeks of the season) were bad enough to cause some unavoidable sacks. When Potter stepped in and Massie started getting used to NFL speed, our pass blocking was average. In fact from week 11, Potter's first start, to week 17 we allowed only 11 sacks or 1.6/game which over the course of the season would be 25. 25 sacks for the season would have made us the 3rd best team in pass blocking. Before anyone blames competition, we held the top sack team in the league, St. Louis to 2 sacks, the #8 sack team Chicago, to 1 sack, and the #11 team SF to 1 sack in that stretch. We absolutely do not need an offensive tackle. We just need Massie and Potter to continue playing like they did after the bye and considering they were rookies, hopefully they will get better rather than worse.

But the OL is about more than pass blocking. I want run blockers because I don't believe there's a franchise QB for us in this draft at #7 and I'd much rather be a smashmouth team next year and until we can find that guy.

Just look at the pre-Rothlisberger Steelers. Continually made the playoffs with guys like Kordell Stewart and Tommy Maddox at QB because they road The Bus and their D. It wasn't enough to win them the SB but they managed to stay competitive and eventually find a QB and win multiple SBs with him. The alternative is reaching for a QB you can't win with and setting the team back 3 more years. Failed 1st round QBs get coaches and GMs fired and lead to another rebuild. It's much better to stay competitive with defense and a running game until you do luck into a franchise QB.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

The 2012 Cardinals with the Three Stooges 5-11

Does that make Hoyer, Shemp?

 

[kerouac9]

Is this thread addressed to people who believe that if the OL is fixed, Kolb will be fine? Or is it addressed to people who would prefer we use the 7th pick in the NFL draft on an offensive lineman instead of (possibly) reaching for a quarterback?

I agree with the former, not so much with the latter. Kolb just isn't good. Can't stay healthy, and can't adjust when NFL teams start seeing what he's doing. Just like three seasons with extensive injuries is a trend, so is three seasons with steeply declining production in just a handful of starts. He holds the ball too long, runs himself into sacks, and protects his completion percentage over getting rid of the football with an incompletion.

I do think that our interior offensive linemen are among the worst in the NFL, and probably should have someone developed behind them. But adding another offensive tackle doesn't make any sense to me.

If anyone watched that Colts-Ravens game and didn't walk away thinking that Andrew Luck would have won if he'd only been playing behind our line, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[HoodieBets]

Just look at the pre-Rothlisberger Steelers. Continually made the playoffs with guys like Kordell Stewart and Tommy Maddox at QB because they road The Bus and their D. It wasn't enough to win them the SB but they managed to stay competitive and eventually find a QB and win multiple SBs with him. The alternative is reaching for a QB you can't win with and setting the team back 3 more years. Failed 1st round QBs get coaches and GMs fired and lead to another rebuild. It's much better to stay competitive with defense and a running game until you do luck into a franchise QB.

Also a different era of football. You cant win in this league without a throwing attack and to win a SB you need a high powered throwing attack. Defense doesnt win championships anymore.

 

[JeffGollin]

you're right. That's why I like how our line is today....

Brandon - Every offseason we talk ourselves into believing our "O-line is gonna be OK." And just about every season, it turns out that it isn't.

What is it they say about doing the same thing over and expecting a different result?

 

[clif]

Oline, QB, Pass rusher (DE or LB) in what order? I really don't know, but these three things need to be addressed by our first 3 picks. All other areas are fixable through lower round picks.

I get the arguments, the QB or the oline. The oline or the QB. I am certain of one thing. We can't wait until the 5th or 6th round to find a starter.

 

[Crimson Warrior]

Moffit was there in 2011 as well when the Seahawks line couldn't protect or open up holes.

It's the quarterback.

I think the main point of your post is okay Mao, but did you watch any of the games in the first half of the season? Our tackle play was comical, and you could have had Tom Brady back there, and we still would have lost all of those games.

But in the 2nd half of the season, after Bastite was benched, and Massie started playing better, it was really poor QB play that did us in. So I'll agree with you if you're saying that, right now, our QB play is a bigger problem than our oline.

Unfortunately, our oline needs off-season work too.

 

[D-Dogg]

Oline, QB, Pass rusher (DE or LB) in what order? I really don't know, but these three things need to be addressed by our first 3 picks. All other areas are fixable through lower round picks.

I get the arguments, the QB or the oline. The oline or the QB. I am certain of one thing. We can't wait until the 5th or 6th round to find a starter.

Agreed. We need to start drafting QBs in rounds 1 & 2, and 3 if there is a good backup project on the board.

 

[Totally_Red]

There are arguments for O-line or quarterback in every draft. It just so happens that there don't seem to be ANY quarterbacks worth taking with the first ten draft choices THIS year and there are several offensive linemen that do seem worth taking relatively high.

Rather than trying to prove a dubious point, why not acknowledge that the Cardinals need upgrades at BOTH offensive line AND quarterback and draft the BPA at #7 (which will probably be an offensive lineman or a defensive stud).

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

Sacks are primarily on the QB and scheme, although Batiste and to a lesser extent Massie (the first few weeks of the season) were bad enough to cause some unavoidable sacks. When Potter stepped in and Massie started getting used to NFL speed, our pass blocking was average. In fact from week 11, Potter's first start, to week 17 we allowed only 11 sacks or 1.6/game which over the course of the season would be 25. 25 sacks for the season would have made us the 3rd best team in pass blocking. Before anyone blames competition, we held the top sack team in the league, St. Louis to 2 sacks, the #8 sack team Chicago, to 1 sack, and the #11 team SF to 1 sack in that stretch. We absolutely do not need an offensive tackle. We just need Massie and Potter to continue playing like they did after the bye and considering they were rookies, hopefully they will get better rather than worse.

But the OL is about more than pass blocking. I want run blockers because I don't believe there's a franchise QB for us in this draft at #7 and I'd much rather be a smashmouth team next year and until we can find that guy.

Just look at the pre-Rothlisberger Steelers. Continually made the playoffs with guys like Kordell Stewart and Tommy Maddox at QB because they road The Bus and their D. It wasn't enough to win them the SB but they managed to stay competitive and eventually find a QB and win multiple SBs with him. The alternative is reaching for a QB you can't win with and setting the team back 3 more years. Failed 1st round QBs get coaches and GMs fired and lead to another rebuild. It's much better to stay competitive with defense and a running game until you do luck into a franchise QB.

Completely agree. I am leaning more and more towards trading down and then drafting a guy like Warmack. With Kelemete on the other side I think this team could have a much improved rushing attack as soon as next season.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

Also a different era of football. You cant win in this league without a throwing attack and to win a SB you need a high powered throwing attack. Defense doesnt win championships anymore.

But at the same time putting together a strong running game opens up the play action and thus creates big plays through the air. You don't have to have a great QB to be competitive you just need to have a solid defense and rushing game and whoever you have behind center can take advantage of some big plays off of play action. You won't like win a SB with this formula, but it will set you up for whenever you get a QB that is good enough to take your passing game to the next level.

 

[HoodieBets]

But at the same time putting together a strong running game opens up the play action and thus creates big plays through the air. You don't have to have a great QB to be competitive you just need to have a solid defense and rushing game and whoever you have behind center can take advantage of some big plays off of play action. You won't like win a SB with this formula, but it will set you up for whenever you get a QB that is good enough to take your passing game to the next level.

If you dont have a competent QB you make it harder on your running attack since the defense will stack the box and dare you to throw. You need a QB who when that does happen can burn the D. He doesnt have to be Tom Brady or Rodgers but I believe if we had a QB like Flacco or Romo we could win a SB with our defense playing like it did the first half of this year the second half they just quit.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

Is this thread addressed to people who believe that if the OL is fixed, Kolb will be fine? Or is it addressed to people who would prefer we use the 7th pick in the NFL draft on an offensive lineman instead of (possibly) reaching for a quarterback?

It was addressed to people who think the biggest issue with our offense is the offensive line and not the quarterback. I never said our line was good, far from it actually. But it's good enough to support the offense we need to win games (just being average) with our defense provided we have an actual NFL-caliber quarterback behind it. And also that having a good QB can skew stats such as sacks allowed and yards per carry even if the pieces remain the same.

 

[JeffGollin]

There are arguments for O-line or quarterback in every draft. It just so happens that there don't seem to be ANY quarterbacks worth taking with the first ten draft choices THIS year and there are several offensive linemen that do seem worth taking relatively high.

Rather than trying to prove a dubious point, why not acknowledge that the Cardinals need upgrades at BOTH offensive line AND quarterback and draft the BPA at #7 (which will probably be an offensive lineman or a defensive stud).

The late George Young used to say you should draft to the strength of each draft.

 

[clif]

After watching the teams in the playoffs it is almost laughable to even think that this team put out a squad of Batiste at tackle, Skelton, kolb, Lindley at QB and had Larod running as the primary running option all while being old, slow and unathletic in the middle of the line.

This offense was a joke from day one. I like Beanie Wells when he is healthy and runs with authority. Levi Brown is a serviceable LT. Not spectacular, but ok if the QB was a superstar.

The bottom line is this team does not have enough superstar talent on offense to consistently compete in today's NFL. We need either a stud lineman at tackle and couple of good guards, or a solid line and a superstar QB. We have very mediocre people at multiple positions. You cannot expect all of them to play great for 16 games.

 

[crisper57]

The late George Young used to say you should draft to the strength of each draft.

Yep. By the time we draft, we should have our choice between a top-tier OL or a second-tier QB. If we were picking #1 or #2 overall, I would say to go with the QB. But since we likely won't be trading down to get one, we go with BPA, which will probably be a lineman.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Brandon - Every offseason we talk ourselves into believing our "O-line is gonna be OK." And just about every season, it turns out that it isn't.

What is it they say about doing the same thing over and expecting a different result?

Well, they say if you do the same thing over and again you'll eventually improve at it and can therefore expect different results and without that practice, you probably won't get better or produce different results. Oh, I know, you were going for that insane definition. Somewhere, Einstein is laughing at all of us.

Steve

 

[D-Dogg]

Well, they say if you do the same thing over and again you'll eventually improve at it and can therefore expect different results and without that practice, you probably won't get better or produce different results. Oh, I know, you were going for that insane definition. Somewhere, Einstein is laughing at all of us.

Steve

No, no. If you do the same wrong thing over and over again you get really, really good at doing it wrong.

Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.

 

[Duckjake]

No, no. If you do the same wrong thing over and over again you get really, really good at doing it wrong.

Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.

Coaches tell us perfect practice makes perfect but then our mother's and others tell us nobody's perfect so why practice?

 

[D-Dogg]

Coaches tell us perfect practice makes perfect but then our mother's and others tell us nobody's perfect so why practice?

I don't know. Ask Einstein. Norman Einstein.

 

[AzStevenCal]

No, no. If you do the same wrong thing over and over again you get really, really good at doing it wrong.

Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.

If you knew it was wrong, why'd you do it? This BS about insanity=doing the same thing over is just that, it's BS. Once you know it's wrong, stop doing it. BUT, you rarely know the right way until you've done it the wrong way. And, many things, don't occur the exact same way every time because rarely are you in control of all variables.

Anyway, it's a stupid saying IMO. As I said before, once you know it's wrong, stop doing it. Until then, keep trying. Show me a person who gives up on a particular approach after one attempt and I'll show you a loser. Did you give up bluffing with a busted flush the first time you got burned? Oh sorry, bad example.

Steve

 

[Mulli]

No, no. If you do the same wrong thing over and over again you get really, really good at doing it wrong.

Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.

If you could practice perfect, why practice? Just be perfect.

 

[AzStevenCal]

If you could practice perfect, why practice? Just be perfect.

Oh man, I'm so embarrassed - I missed the obvious retort. Well done.

Steve

 

[D-Dogg]

If you knew it was wrong, why'd you do it? This BS about insanity=doing the same thing over is just that, it's BS. Once you know it's wrong, stop doing it. BUT, you rarely know the right way until you've done it the wrong way. And, many things, don't occur the exact same way every time because rarely are you in control of all variables.

Anyway, it's a stupid saying IMO. As I said before, once you know it's wrong, stop doing it. Until then, keep trying. Show me a person who gives up on a particular approach after one attempt and I'll show you a loser. Did you give up bluffing with a busted flush the first time you got burned? Oh sorry, bad example.

Steve

If I teach you to shoot a basketball incorrectly, and you shoot a thousand shots with that hitch, you'll be stuck with a faulty shot that will slow your release.

The problem is that people don't usually know what they are doing is wrong. Or they fool themselves into believing it is ok. That's our OL situation. It's fine. Just needs time to gel.

Of course if you know it is wrong you will change...fail fast is a great concept. But recognizing something being wrong is tough for us mere humans, we are kind of big dumb animals for the most part.

 

[D-Dogg]

If you could practice perfect, why practice? Just be perfect.

Well duh.

How about this. Practice perfects imperfections.