Coach Tuesday Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 FYI, don't know if anyone else caught this (or posted about it), but Shelton was an embarassment out there against Freeney yesterday. He looked like Kris Farris on a bad day. I still don't get why everyone is ripping our o-line. Gandy and Benny have played well, there were tons running lanes yesterday against a good defense, and with the exception of some whiffs by Teague, the pass protection wasn't bad. Plus, we finally have a center of the future (Preston), Peters has developed quickly into a capable tackle, etc. THE LINE WAS NOT THE PROBLEM YESTERDAY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Peters has developed quickly into a capable tackle, etc. THE LINE WAS NOT THE PROBLEM YESTERDAY. 456071[/snapback] When did Peters play tackle yesterday...? BTW - with your last line (all in caps even!), I bet there's a job available for you at One Bills Drive. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zac Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 They were at one point triple blocking Freeney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted September 27, 2005 Author Share Posted September 27, 2005 When did Peters play tackle yesterday...? BTW - with your last line (all in caps even!), I bet there's a job available for you at One Bills Drive. CW 456072[/snapback] So, you're saying the line was the problem yesterday? Tell me if that's what you're saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 So, you're saying the line was the problem yesterday? Tell me if that's what you're saying. 456078[/snapback] Yes, the line was definately a big part of the problem for the offense yesterday. Not all of it, by any stretch of the imagination, but a big one, and has been for 10+ years. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 FYI, don't know if anyone else caught this (or posted about it), but Shelton was an embarassment out there against Freeney yesterday. He looked like Kris Farris on a bad day. .... 456071[/snapback] Everyone looks bad against Freeney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted September 27, 2005 Author Share Posted September 27, 2005 Yes, the line was definately a big part of the problem for the offense yesterday. 456086[/snapback] Well that's wrong. Did McGahee run for 140 yards despite the line? They blew a good defense off the ball repeatedly, and JP had enough time to make his reads save a few plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Well that's wrong. Did McGahee run for 140 yards despite the line? They blew a good defense off the ball repeatedly, and JP had enough time to make his reads save a few plays. 456112[/snapback] You see, there's two phases to an OL game - pass blocking and run blocking. Just because you're good at once phase, doesn't mean you're good at a different phase. For a further illustration of this, consider the Center vs the Long snapper. Both play the center of the OL. Both snap the ball backwards. One snaps it further back than the other, yet it's a specialized skill. Our OL seems good at run blcoking (although a lot of that is WM finding and breaking through holes as well). Pass blocking, we're not so good at. But I suppose you'll tell me that my opinion is wrong, right? Because frankliy, ther'es no way to "prove" either side of the argument. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Well that's wrong. Did McGahee run for 140 yards despite the line? They blew a good defense off the ball repeatedly, and JP had enough time to make his reads save a few plays. 456112[/snapback] The Falcons were down to, what, two cornerbacks? #1 and #5 on the depth chart? Yeah, like they were going to be serious about stopping the running attack. I think their D was playing to provide support to the secondary, not focus on run defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts