PDA

View Full Version : How Bout That OLine?



flippy
09-26-2010, 03:53 PM
They kept Charlie upright and made some room for Mendy to tote the rock.

I like it. This is our SuperBowl calibre line:

Max - Kemo - Pounce - Legs - Flo

Those are some big boys doing some great work up front. I hope we roll with this combo and the rest of the league is gonna be in trouble when this group gels.

Go Steelers!!!!!

Get ready for some Raven stew next week fellas!!!!!!!

hawaiiansteel
09-26-2010, 03:58 PM
do you think Legursky starts again next week or does Essex regain his starting spot if he's healthy?

RuthlessBurgher
09-26-2010, 04:08 PM
do you think Legursky starts again next week or does Essex regain his starting spot if he's healthy?

They probably put Trai back in because they will want an experinenced RG between our recently converted RT and our rookie center. However, remember...Essux.

Jooser
09-26-2010, 04:15 PM
I thought Legursky performed well today.

Djfan
09-26-2010, 04:19 PM
Batch had four hurries. That's it.

At times Charlie had time to balance his checkbook back there.

Looked good to me.

BradshawsHairdresser
09-26-2010, 04:49 PM
I thought Legursky performed well today.

Dang, we sure missed that Urbik...who was the lame-brain that decided to cut him? :lol:

Stewie
09-26-2010, 04:52 PM
I thought that Legursky played well, and the OL played well in general in both run and pass blocking. I am concerned that we don't seem to be able to run left consistently.

hawaiiansteel
09-26-2010, 05:17 PM
I thought that Legursky played well, and the OL played well in general in both run and pass blocking. I am concerned that we don't seem to be able to run left consistently.



does Arians have any running plays in his playbook that go left? :stirpot

NJ-STEELER
09-26-2010, 05:19 PM
flozell is settling in.

too bad we didn't cut him after the first preseason game this year like some wanted :wink:

RuthlessBurgher
09-26-2010, 05:25 PM
I thought that Legursky played well, and the OL played well in general in both run and pass blocking. I am concerned that we don't seem to be able to run left consistently.



does Arians have any running plays in his playbook that go left? :stirpot

http://www.citybikerblog.com/images/zoolander1.jpghttp://rlv.zcache.com/i_cant_turn_left_tshirt-p235340028345539599trdy_210.jpg

steelblood
09-26-2010, 05:44 PM
I rewound the running plays and carefully watched the line. On the few plays that went left, Kemo and Max made decent blocks, but Tampa's LBers overloaded and stuffed the plays. I think we'll be able to run left enough to keep teams honest and the rest will go up the middle and right. Mendenhall doesn't like putting the ball in his left arm, so running right gives us better ball security (since the ball is in the correct arm).

hawaiiansteel
09-26-2010, 10:37 PM
I hope our OL knocks this guy on his arse a few times on Sunday - :ratsuck


http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll28/presidentnotsure/RayLewis1.jpg

Stewie
09-27-2010, 07:29 AM
I rewound the running plays and carefully watched the line. On the few plays that went left, Kemo and Max made decent blocks, but Tampa's LBers overloaded and stuffed the plays. I think we'll be able to run left enough to keep teams honest and the rest will go up the middle and right. Mendenhall doesn't like putting the ball in his left arm, so running right gives us better ball security (since the ball is in the correct arm).

If the Tampa LBs overloaded and stuffed, then, as coach ex officio plenipotentiary, I would suspect a tell, either formation or individual. The Mendy left arm thing is just unacceptable. An NFL RB has to be able to run with ball in either arm. In fact, its a pet peave of mine to see pro players running with the ball in the wrong arm as Brown did on his kickoff return.

stlrz d
09-27-2010, 07:51 AM
My pet peeve is people who spell "peeve" wrong. :D

Stewie
09-27-2010, 08:37 AM
Touche on the spelling, but I stand by the tell thangy and my pet peeve.

Tomlinator
09-27-2010, 09:06 AM
I think I read somewhere that this was the first game with no sacks since Dixon's start in Baltimore last season.

More proof that Ben's teammates hate him. :D :stirpot

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
09-27-2010, 09:35 AM
I'm anxious to see how the interior handles Ngata & Lewis. If they can execute rub blocks and get to Lewis, I expect a big day in the run game. For the last three years, I've seen Hartwig & the Gs trying to rub block Ngata and one come off to get to Lewis. Never happened. Ngata would force both to take him and lewis was running around unblocked. This would be a huge lift in the running game against the Ravens.

Also anxious to see Adams introduce himself to Lewis. I have been watching Adams and the guy is impressively nimble on the second level for a big guy. He seems to engulf anyone he gets his hands on. Hard to get around him in the phonebooth.

The right side with Kemo trapping/leading seems to be a productive area between the tackles. The Steelers need to continue to push the issue on the ground. Defenses are clearly wearing down in the 2nd half and the Ravens defense over the last couple years breaks down the longer you keep them on the field. This "could be" the first time...In a long time...Ngata wears down from working against our OL and Lewis gets frustrated because he has OL in his face all day. If you want to see where this OL is at....Watch and see if the interior OL can handle Ngata with combination blocks and get one to come off to get to the LBs. If they are doing this against the Ravens without BB at the controls...This OL & Koogs deserve alot of props. I can already see a new attitude from Koogs "nastiness" but to continue to do this with 8 and sometimes #9 walking up...Is very impressive. To do this against the Ravens front...Means there is a new Big Dog in the neighborhood. All puppies need to stay on the porch!

MeetJoeGreene
09-27-2010, 09:40 AM
do you think Legursky starts again next week or does Essex regain his starting spot if he's healthy?

They probably put Trai back in because they will want an experinenced RG between our recently converted RT and our rookie center. However, remember...Essux.

I am hoping Bronco stays starting.

grotonsteel
09-27-2010, 10:37 AM
do you think Legursky starts again next week or does Essex regain his starting spot if he's healthy?

They probably put Trai back in because they will want an experinenced RG between our recently converted RT and our rookie center. However, remember...Essux.

I am hoping Bronco stays starting.


Does anyone know if Bronco was better than Essex??? Does Bronco start against Ratbirds??

I am really interested in watching how O-line handles the Ratbirds D-line especially Ngata.

flippy
09-28-2010, 08:11 AM
Does anyone know if Bronco was better than Essex???

By a mile. He was destroying guys all day long as was Hotel who looks really nimble out there.

Bronco looks like the guy who gives us the best chance to help Pouncey move Ngata out of plays. And this will be the week he solidifies his starting position.

Our best 5 lined up in Tampa.

RuthlessBurgher
09-29-2010, 02:23 AM
Does anyone know if Bronco was better than Essex???

By a mile. He was destroying guys all day long as was Hotel who looks really nimble out there.

Bronco looks like the guy who gives us the best chance to help Pouncey move Ngata out of plays. And this will be the week he solidifies his starting position.

Our best 5 lined up in Tampa.

Ngata doesn't typically line up on the Legursky side, though. He tends to line up on the Kemoeatu side.

SteelTorch
09-29-2010, 10:08 AM
I'll say what I said about BA: one game is not going to make me forget two games of utter ineptitude. They're going to start being consistently good til I label them as such. :nono

sentinel33
09-29-2010, 10:39 AM
couldnt agree more with the posts. The offensive line played real well. I also think this is a very good lineup. When Ben comes back the opposing defenses wont be able to put 8-9 in the box to stop rashard. Then we will see the true firepower of this fully operational battle station. cant wait.

Steel Life
09-29-2010, 08:17 PM
Let's all hope that BA doesn't forget the running plays when Ben returns...

That said...one of the things I'm looking forward to is watching how Pouncey goes to the 2nd level (which he does very well) & goes looking for Ray...it will either be an education for the kid or an introduction to the old man that a dominant player has arrived.

SteelTorch
09-29-2010, 08:18 PM
Let's all hope that BA doesn't forget the running plays when Ben returns...

That said...one of the things I'm looking forward to is watching how Pouncey goes to the 2nd level (which he does very well) & goes looking for Ray...it will either be an education for the kid or an introduction to the old man that a dominant player has arrived.
We NEVER forgot running plays! We just couldn't run the ball well when we needed to.

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
09-30-2010, 09:22 AM
Let's all hope that BA doesn't forget the running plays when Ben returns...

That said...one of the things I'm looking forward to is watching how Pouncey goes to the 2nd level (which he does very well) & goes looking for Ray...it will either be an education for the kid or an introduction to the old man that a dominant player has arrived.
We NEVER forgot running plays! We just couldn't run the ball well when we needed to.

Hey SteelTorch....You are Dead-On with that statement. Two games come to mind where it was really lopsided but other than that...Good assesment. Let's hope that is in the past.

feltdizz
09-30-2010, 09:41 AM
I'll say what I said about BA: one game is not going to make me forget two games of utter ineptitude. They're going to start being consistently good til I label them as such. :nono

you are holding onto those 2 games like they are SB losses... they were 4th string wins.

Oviedo
09-30-2010, 10:05 AM
I think I read somewhere that this was the first game with no sacks since Dixon's start in Baltimore last season.

More proof that Ben's teammates hate him. :D :stirpot

Do you think that the OL plays harder to protect Batch knowing the "old guy" can't take a hit than they do for Ben? They know Ben is a stud and will be all over the place whereas "Gramps" is a sitting target.

flippy
09-30-2010, 10:13 AM
The OLIne doesn't always know where Ben is. Sacks on Ben are hard to prevent.

Interestingly, Mike Vick is the most sacked QB in the NFL right now.

Bottom line, guys that are mobile are going to take sacks and hits. But their big plays more than make up for the negatives.

flippy
09-30-2010, 10:14 AM
The OLIne doesn't always know where Ben is. Sacks on Ben are hard to prevent.

Interestingly, Mike Vick is the most sacked QB in the NFL right now.

Bottom line, guys that are mobile are going to take sacks and hits. But their big plays more than make up for the negatives.

RuthlessBurgher
09-30-2010, 10:23 AM
Flippy is correct. Perhaps that is why he posted it twice...for emphasis. :wink:

SteelTorch
09-30-2010, 10:26 AM
I'll say what I said about BA: one game is not going to make me forget two games of utter ineptitude. They're going to start being consistently good til I label them as such. :nono

you are holding onto those 2 games like they are SB losses... they were 4th string wins.
Just because we won doesn't mean the O-line played well. Why do you continue to assume that a win means that the O-line must have been fine? That's not how a sport such as football works. Especially since one could tell that the line had a lot of problems in the first two games - they couldn't open up holes and couldn't protect the QB.

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
09-30-2010, 11:26 AM
I'll say what I said about BA: one game is not going to make me forget two games of utter ineptitude. They're going to start being consistently good til I label them as such. :nono

you are holding onto those 2 games like they are SB losses... they were 4th string wins.
Just because we won doesn't mean the O-line played well. Why do you continue to assume that a win means that the O-line must have been fine? That's not how a sport such as football works. Especially since one could tell that the line had a lot of problems in the first two games - they couldn't open up holes and couldn't protect the QB.

You went from Dead-on to Dead wrong. I had hope for you for about 10 minutes. :wink:

Honestly, the debate of how the OL played could go on forever. There is not one person in the media or even on the coaching staff that believes the OL played poorly in the first 3 games. If you watched the games and know the Steelers are up against...You tip your hat.

Steelers VS Titans since 2008
2008 (Roethlisberger @ QB 25/39 329 YDS 2TD/2INT) 25 ATT/36 YDS 1.6 AVG 5 SACKS
2009 (Roethlisberger @ QB 33/43 363 YDS 1TD/2INT) 23 ATT/73 YDS 2.9 AVG 4 SACKS
2010 (Dixon/Batch @ QB 9/17 43 YDS OTD/0INT) 33 ATT/106 YDS 3.2 AVG 4 SACKS

If the Steelers bettered their output than when Ben was at QB VS their 3rd & 4th string QB...That is production. You don't have to agree with it...But it is right in front of you.

feltdizz
09-30-2010, 11:52 AM
I'll say what I said about BA: one game is not going to make me forget two games of utter ineptitude. They're going to start being consistently good til I label them as such. :nono

you are holding onto those 2 games like they are SB losses... they were 4th string wins.
Just because we won doesn't mean the O-line played well. Why do you continue to assume that a win means that the O-line must have been fine? That's not how a sport such as football works. Especially since one could tell that the line had a lot of problems in the first two games - they couldn't open up holes and couldn't protect the QB.

I just think you need to put the first 2 games in perspective in regards to the QB production and our conservative play of Dixon.

You keep talking about the first 2 games like our QB was opening up the D with throws down the field. He was very conservative with his distribution. I think Batch runs the O much better and gives us a glimpse of what our OL is built to do.

SteelTorch
09-30-2010, 12:11 PM
You went from Dead-on to Dead wrong. I had hope for you for about 10 minutes. :wink:

Honestly, the debate of how the OL played could go on forever. There is not one person in the media or even on the coaching staff that believes the OL played poorly in the first 3 games. If you watched the games and know the Steelers are up against...You tip your hat.

Steelers VS Titans since 2008
2008 (Roethlisberger @ QB 25/39 329 YDS 2TD/2INT) 25 ATT/36 YDS 1.6 AVG 5 SACKS
2009 (Roethlisberger @ QB 33/43 363 YDS 1TD/2INT) 23 ATT/73 YDS 2.9 AVG 4 SACKS
2010 (Dixon/Batch @ QB 9/17 43 YDS OTD/0INT) 33 ATT/106 YDS 3.2 AVG 4 SACKS

If the Steelers bettered their output than when Ben was at QB VS their 3rd & 4th string QB...That is production. You don't have to agree with it...But it is right in front of you.
Are you seriously trying to imply that that an average of just 3.2 yards is actually GOOD???? 3.2 yards per attempt is pathetic! That's not even good for a rusher!

A slight improvement from "terrible" to "not as terrible" is all that stat shows. It's still not enough to be good. And what's our excuse for Atlanta? Hmm?

If you like stats, here are some for you: Even after last week, our O-line has the highest sack rate in the entire league (14.9%). We also rank 30th in 3rd down conversions. And, through the first two games, we averaged a paltry 3.89 yards per rushing attempt - 15th in the league. You think that's good? If you do, your standards are abysmally low. I say again, unless they start proving to be good on a consistent basis, then I'm going to refrain from labeling them as such.

SteelTorch
09-30-2010, 12:21 PM
I'll say what I said about BA: one game is not going to make me forget two games of utter ineptitude. They're going to start being consistently good til I label them as such. :nono

you are holding onto those 2 games like they are SB losses... they were 4th string wins.
Just because we won doesn't mean the O-line played well. Why do you continue to assume that a win means that the O-line must have been fine? That's not how a sport such as football works. Especially since one could tell that the line had a lot of problems in the first two games - they couldn't open up holes and couldn't protect the QB.

I just think you need to put the first 2 games in perspective in regards to the QB production and our conservative play of Dixon.

You keep talking about the first 2 games like our QB was opening up the D with throws down the field. He was very conservative with his distribution. I think Batch runs the O much better and gives us a glimpse of what our OL is built to do.
A rookie QB playing is no excuse for them being that poor. The Patriots in 2008 started a rookie at QB practically all season, and their offensive line finished in the top ten. By the way, you never answered my question. Dodging the issue, are we?

You're "conservative" offense theory, by the way, makes no sense. If Dixon was using short, less-risky passes, our sack rate should have gone down. You basically contradicted yourself.

RuthlessBurgher
09-30-2010, 12:22 PM
So far this year, after already losing our starting RT to injury prior to the start of the season, we have had 3 guys take snaps at LT (Starks, Scott, Hills), 2 guys take snaps at LG (Kemoeatu, Legursky), 3 guys take snaps at RG (Essex, Legursky, Foster), 2 guys take snaps at RT (Adams, Scott), and the only position that has required shifting players in and out is center, which is manned by a rookie. I think "not as terrible" is pretty remarkable at this point considering all of these circumstances.

feltdizz
09-30-2010, 12:43 PM
I'll say what I said about BA: one game is not going to make me forget two games of utter ineptitude. They're going to start being consistently good til I label them as such. :nono

you are holding onto those 2 games like they are SB losses... they were 4th string wins.
Just because we won doesn't mean the O-line played well. Why do you continue to assume that a win means that the O-line must have been fine? That's not how a sport such as football works. Especially since one could tell that the line had a lot of problems in the first two games - they couldn't open up holes and couldn't protect the QB.

I just think you need to put the first 2 games in perspective in regards to the QB production and our conservative play of Dixon.

You keep talking about the first 2 games like our QB was opening up the D with throws down the field. He was very conservative with his distribution. I think Batch runs the O much better and gives us a glimpse of what our OL is built to do.
A rookie QB playing is no excuse for them being that poor. The Patriots in 2008 started a rookie at QB practically all season, and their offensive line finished in the top ten. By the way, you never answered my question. Dodging the issue, are we?

You're "conservative" offense theory, by the way, makes no sense. If Dixon was using short, less-risky passes, our sack rate should have gone down. You basically contradicted yourself.
You mean that OL that we destroyed in 2008? :roll: How many sacks did we have? How effective was their OL in that game? 2 straight strip sacks... oh, but you used the whole season for their rating and not one or 2 games... :wink:

Dixon didn't throw enough passes down field to force the D to back off.


the OL hasn't cost us any games... but keep complaining.

SteelTorch
09-30-2010, 12:48 PM
You mean that OL that we destroyed in 2008? :roll:

Dixon didn't throw enough passes down field to force the D to back off.

the OL hasn't cost us any games... but keep complaining.
That OL was destroyed by one of the best defenses of the decade. And that was just one game. Any other lame retorts you wish to get out?

But even if that was true, the sack rate should have gone down. And Dixon averaged 9.1 YPA against Atlanta. Seemed he was definitely trying to get it down-field.

They haven't cost us any games THIS season - but they have in the past. I'll complain as long as they give me reason to. :wink:

feltdizz
09-30-2010, 12:54 PM
You mean that OL that we destroyed in 2008? :roll:


the OL hasn't cost us any games... but keep complaining.
That OL was destroyed by one of the best defenses of the decade. And that was just one game. Any other lame retorts you wish to get out?

They haven't cost us any games THIS season - but they have in the past. I'll complain as long as they give me reason to. :wink:

So you get to choose what games are worth using as evidence but others don't? Gotcha...

:Cheers

Last season we had a different OL coach and about 3 players who are no longer in uniform. What does that have to do with this year? :wink:

proudpittsburgher
09-30-2010, 12:55 PM
Didn't Cassell put up some 300+ and even a 400+ yard game that season to keep the defense honest? DD was absolutely zero threat to pass, meaning they could play the run every down including third and long. I don't care how good your offensive line is, it is going to be tough sledding to get a running game going under those circumstances. As soon as Batch opned it up a bit, the run game got going with some nice-sized holes for Mendy to take advantage of. I was very pleaseed with what I saw out of them against Tampa, and to be honest, I didn't know how Mendy got more tha a two-yard gain in either of the first two games, given the knowlege that DD couldn't pass.

feltdizz
09-30-2010, 12:57 PM
Didn't Cassell put up some 300+ and even a 400+ yard game that season to keep the defense honest? DD was absolutely zero threat to pass, meaning they could play the run every down including third and long. I don't care how good your offensive line is, it is going to be tough sledding to get a running game going under those circumstances. As soon as Batch opned it up a bit, the run game got going with some nice-sized holes for Mendy to take advantage of. I was very pleaseed with what I saw out of them against Tampa, and to be honest, I didn't know how Mendy got more tha a two-yard gain in either of the first two games, given the knowlege that DD couldn't pass.

shhhh it doesn't matter who the QB is or how they played. The OL should be gangster regardless. :roll:

proudpittsburgher
09-30-2010, 12:58 PM
to answer my own question, Cassell pased for almost 3,700 yards that season. That's all their O-line had to worry about was pass blocking.

SteelTorch
09-30-2010, 01:05 PM
So you get to choose what games are worth using as evidence but others don't? Gotcha...

:Cheers

Last season we had a different OL coach and about 3 players who are no longer in uniform. What does that have to do with this year? :wink:
No, I'm saying you have to look at how they did in the whole season, not just one game. Anomalies happen, and you have to look at the big picture. If you still don't understand that concept, I could have a kindergarden teacher dumb it down for you.

Two games of ineptitude, and one good performance against a not-so-good team, along with three years of poor performance. I'd say that has a lot to do with this year. :P

SteelTorch
09-30-2010, 01:09 PM
to answer my own question, Cassell pased for almost 3,700 yards that season. That's all their O-line had to worry about was pass blocking.
The Patriots ranked 6th in rushing yards that season. They definitely had to worry more than pass-blocking. :roll:

Do any of you actually bother to look stuff up?

feltdizz
09-30-2010, 01:37 PM
So you get to choose what games are worth using as evidence but others don't? Gotcha...

:Cheers

Last season we had a different OL coach and about 3 players who are no longer in uniform. What does that have to do with this year? :wink:
No, I'm saying you have to look at how they did in the whole season, not just one game. Anomalies happen, and you have to look at the big picture. If you still don't understand that concept, I could have a kindergarden teacher dumb it down for you.

Two games of ineptitude, and one good performance against a not-so-good team, along with three years of poor performance. I'd say that has a lot to do with this year. :P
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Pouncey, Adams, Legursky and a new OL coach... 2010-11. Last year... was last year. Just thought I would dumb it down for you.

feltdizz
09-30-2010, 01:44 PM
to answer my own question, Cassell pased for almost 3,700 yards that season. That's all their O-line had to worry about was pass blocking.
The Patriots ranked 6th in rushing yards that season. They definitely had to worry more than pass-blocking. :roll:

Do any of you actually bother to look stuff up?

Patriots had 118 yards on 16 carries against us in 2008. Damn near all of those yards were on draws or running plays when the D was playing pass towards the end of the first half.

Do you bother to watch the games or do you JUST look at stats?

That OL also was responsible for Brady's knee... KC was after him all game long.

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
09-30-2010, 02:58 PM
You went from Dead-on to Dead wrong. I had hope for you for about 10 minutes. :wink:

Honestly, the debate of how the OL played could go on forever. There is not one person in the media or even on the coaching staff that believes the OL played poorly in the first 3 games. If you watched the games and know the Steelers are up against...You tip your hat.

Steelers VS Titans since 2008
2008 (Roethlisberger @ QB 25/39 329 YDS 2TD/2INT) 25 ATT/36 YDS 1.6 AVG 5 SACKS
2009 (Roethlisberger @ QB 33/43 363 YDS 1TD/2INT) 23 ATT/73 YDS 2.9 AVG 4 SACKS
2010 (Dixon/Batch @ QB 9/17 43 YDS OTD/0INT) 33 ATT/106 YDS 3.2 AVG 4 SACKS

If the Steelers bettered their output than when Ben was at QB VS their 3rd & 4th string QB...That is production. You don't have to agree with it...But it is right in front of you.
Are you seriously trying to imply that that an average of just 3.2 yards is actually GOOD???? 3.2 yards per attempt is pathetic! That's not even good for a rusher!

A slight improvement from "terrible" to "not as terrible" is all that stat shows. It's still not enough to be good. And what's our excuse for Atlanta? Hmm?

If you like stats, here are some for you: Even after last week, our O-line has the highest sack rate in the entire league (14.9%). We also rank 30th in 3rd down conversions. And, through the first two games, we averaged a paltry 3.89 yards per rushing attempt - 15th in the league. You think that's good? If you do, your standards are abysmally low. I say again, unless they start proving to be good on a consistent basis, then I'm going to refrain from labeling them as such.

I showed you apples for apples. You say no improvement...There it is. You repeatedly show that you have no concept of football outside of looking at the stats & scoreboard. The presence of BB at QB accounted for something in those games. If Batch was QB in those games, the carries would exceed the yards. Without him, this OL better those numbers this year against the same team. 3 yards a carry while BB is on the field is not acceptable. Right now it is because they are facing different fronts. Keep ignoring the fact that there was a 3rd & 4th string QB in the game. Keep ignoring the fact the Steelers face 8 & 9 man fronts. Keep ignoring the fact you have no idea how a defense defends a team that has no threat of pressing verticaly. When a team can sell out and run blitz, it makes it difficult to even run playaction.

Eagles have the highest sack rate with a 14.1%. Steelers have a 11.6%. Vick was sacked 11 of the 14 times. Dixon was sacked 5 of the 7 times. Is there any similarities between the two? You are honestly going to throw 3rd down percentage in this debate with #3 & #4 at the controls? Steelers have ran the ball 59% of the time. Passing situations come up now & then if you run that much. Hard to convert 3rd downs with no passing game. You saw what the total package could look like against the Bucs. That 3rd down efficiency puts you in the Top 10.

Still don't know where you are getting your stats from.
ATL 31/43 4.6
TEN 33/106 3.2
TAMP 32/201 6.3

After Week 1 - 4.6
After Week 2 - 3.9
After Week 3 - 4.7

If you are going to pick & choose, you have to do it for 31 other teams before you start putting them against them to rank them.

hawaiiansteel
09-30-2010, 03:19 PM
let's hope our OL has success opening running lanes against the Ravens, I would hate to see Batch have to throw the ball a lot on 3rd and longs...


Ravens rank 23rd in rushing defense

Aaron Wilson
SEPTEMBER 29, 2010


OWINGS MILLS, Md. -- John Harbaugh challenged the notion that the Baltimore Ravens are suddenly vulnerable against the run after giving up 144 rushing yards to bruising Cleveland Browns running back Peyton Hillis.

“I would love for our opponents to think we can’t stop the run,” Harbaugh said on his weekly radio show. “Opponents listening, Ravens can’t stop the run. Just run it at us and we’ll see how it turns out.”

The Ravens rank 23rd in the league in rushing defense, allowing 127.7 yards per contest and 4.8 yards per carry.

This week, they square off with Steelers runner Rashard Mendenhall.

He has rushed for 120 yards against the Atlanta Falcons and 143 yards against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

“Anytime you rush for that many yards, we’re going to be watching the film this week, probably until about six o’clock in the morning,” linebacker Jarret Johnson said.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Har ... -ball.html (http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Harbaugh-challenges-opponents-to-run-the-ball.html)

SteelTorch
09-30-2010, 03:33 PM
I showed you apples for apples. You say no improvement...There it is. You repeatedly show that you have no concept of football outside of looking at the stats & scoreboard. The presence of BB at QB accounted for something in those games. If Batch was QB in those games, the carries would exceed the yards. Without him, this OL better those numbers this year against the same team. 3 yards a carry while BB is on the field is not acceptable. Right now it is because they are facing different fronts. Keep ignoring the fact that there was a 3rd & 4th string QB in the game. Keep ignoring the fact the Steelers face 8 & 9 man fronts. Keep ignoring the fact you have no idea how a defense defends a team that has no threat of pressing verticaly. When a team can sell out and run blitz, it makes it difficult to even run playaction.

Eagles have the highest sack rate with a 14.1%. Steelers have a 11.6%. Vick was sacked 11 of the 14 times. Dixon was sacked 5 of the 7 times. Is there any similarities between the two? You are honestly going to throw 3rd down percentage in this debate with #3 & #4 at the controls? Steelers have ran the ball 59% of the time. Passing situations come up now & then if you run that much. Hard to convert 3rd downs with no passing game. You saw what the total package could look like against the Bucs. That 3rd down efficiency puts you in the Top 10.

Still don't know where you are getting your stats from.
ATL 31/43 4.6
TEN 33/106 3.2
TAMP 32/201 6.3

After Week 1 - 4.6
After Week 2 - 3.9
After Week 3 - 4.7

If you are going to pick & choose, you have to do it for 31 other teams before you start putting them against them to rank them.
You claim the OL must be improved because they had a slightly better average in rushing. What if Tennessee's run stopping ability just got worse? You also claim that they stacked 8-9 in the box because there was no vertical threat. Did it ever occur to you that maybe there was no vertical threat BECAUSE the O-line couldn't protect at all - not the other way around? Batch and Dixon are both decent QB's. They've proved that they can move the ball downfield. The fact that their 3rd/4th string whatever is pretty much irrelevant. Of course there's going to be a slight drop in production - but the O-line's performance through two games was downright pathetic.

I've said it before to you, but clearly you didn't get it last time - it doesn't matter if the O-line improves slightly against one team versus the last time. This is one game. If they're still not doing as well as all the other players in the league, then it means nothing. That's why rankings are important. You can't win a game if your players aren't as good as the other guys. Simple as that. But apparently you're okay if they wallow mediocrity, so long as they're "improved" in one game compared with a year ago.

By the way, kindly specify what stats you're actually posting instead of just throwing out random numbers. K, thanks.

SteelTorch
09-30-2010, 03:42 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Pouncey, Adams, Legursky and a new OL coach... 2010-11. Last year... was last year. Just thought I would dumb it down for you.
Yeah, last year was last year. They played poorly last year, and played poorly this year. Your point?

I proved out how the Patriots, despite starting a rookie QB, still had their O-line finish in the top ten. You conveniently ignored that fact and proved just how little you knew by trying to steer the argument away from it.

So yes, it is possible for an O-line to play well with a rookie QB. Now, if you still can't grasp that concept, I could try to use doodles and crayons. Would that work out for you? :P

feltdizz
09-30-2010, 04:05 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Pouncey, Adams, Legursky and a new OL coach... 2010-11. Last year... was last year. Just thought I would dumb it down for you.
Yeah, last year was last year. They played poorly last year, and played poorly this year. Your point?

I proved out how the Patriots, despite starting a rookie QB, still had their O-line finish in the top ten. You conveniently ignored that fact and proved just how little you knew by trying to steer the argument away from it.

So yes, it is possible for an O-line to play well with a rookie QB. Now, if you still can't grasp that concept, I could try to use doodles and crayons. Would that work out for you? :P


you wear your ignorance with so much pride....you must be a child.

Dixon isn't Cassel. I have no idea why you are so hung up on the 2008 Pats OL. They didn't even make the playoffs...

oops, I forgot... winning games doesn't matter, having a top 10 OL on the couch in January is way more important.

flippy
09-30-2010, 04:07 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Pouncey, Adams, Legursky and a new OL coach... 2010-11. Last year... was last year. Just thought I would dumb it down for you.
Yeah, last year was last year. They played poorly last year, and played poorly this year. Your point?

I proved out how the Patriots, despite starting a rookie QB, still had their O-line finish in the top ten. You conveniently ignored that fact and proved just how little you knew by trying to steer the argument away from it.

So yes, it is possible for an O-line to play well with a rookie QB. Now, if you still can't grasp that concept, I could try to use doodles and crayons. Would that work out for you? :P

Our line looked good to me for 1 game this year and it was against Tampa. I believe we finally have 5 quality starters on the line and we should continue with these 5 men going forward and allow this line to gel.

This line can be dominant by the end of the year and can be a strength going into the playoffs.

Legs and Adams are 2 big and powerful men who were bringing a physical game I haven't seen recently from our line. Those 2 were destroying guys. And Adams is pretty quick for his size.

Pouncey is a huge upgrade already. He's quick and powerful and already looks to be on the road to being one of the top Cs in the game. I wasn't a huge fan of drafting a C so early, but Pouncey has quickly won me over.

Solidifying the center position will help Kemo develop. Kemo is a powerful guy with loads of potential. We've seen quite a few mental errors over the last year, but I'm hopeful Kemo will only get better with Pouncey next to him.

And finally, there's Max. Max is proven in my book. He's done very well against some of the better pass rushers in the league. He's a top 10 LT imho. And improved play by Kemo will only help Max play better.

I prefer looking forward over looking back. And the 5 guys that started this past week look like they can be one of the better units in the league.

I expect them to excel with run blocking. But I was pleasantly surprised how well we did in keeping pressure off of Chuck last week.

If these 5 guys can gel, I don't think we're too far from having an offense that's just as dangerous as our defense.

Oviedo
09-30-2010, 04:13 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Pouncey, Adams, Legursky and a new OL coach... 2010-11. Last year... was last year. Just thought I would dumb it down for you.
Yeah, last year was last year. They played poorly last year, and played poorly this year. Your point?

I proved out how the Patriots, despite starting a rookie QB, still had their O-line finish in the top ten. You conveniently ignored that fact and proved just how little you knew by trying to steer the argument away from it.

So yes, it is possible for an O-line to play well with a rookie QB. Now, if you still can't grasp that concept, I could try to use doodles and crayons. Would that work out for you? :P

Our line looked good to me for 1 game this year and it was against Tampa. I believe we finally have 5 quality starters on the line and we should continue with these 5 men going forward and allow this line to gel.

This line can be dominant by the end of the year and can be a strength going into the playoffs.

Legs and Adams are 2 big and powerful men who were bringing a physical game I haven't seen recently from our line. Those 2 were destroying guys. And Adams is pretty quick for his size.

Pouncey is a huge upgrade already. He's quick and powerful and already looks to be on the road to being one of the top Cs in the game. I wasn't a huge fan of drafting a C so early, but Pouncey has quickly won me over.

Solidifying the center position will help Kemo develop. Kemo is a powerful guy with loads of potential. We've seen quite a few mental errors over the last year, but I'm hopeful Kemo will only get better with Pouncey next to him.

And finally, there's Max. Max is proven in my book. He's done very well against some of the better pass rushers in the league. He's a top 10 LT imho. And improved play by Kemo will only help Max play better.

I prefer looking forward over looking back. And the 5 guys that started this past week look like they can be one of the better units in the league.

I expect them to excel with run blocking. But I was pleasantly surprised how well we did in keeping pressure off of Chuck last week.

If these 5 guys can gel, I don't think we're too far from having an offense that's just as dangerous as our defense.


Totally agree. The OL has never been as bad as some made it out to be and they seem to be better this year no matter how many want to ignore that.

It's alot like the Timmons criticisms and the need to repeat the same old tired, rote criticisms that have never had much validity.

SteelTorch
09-30-2010, 04:43 PM
Yeah, last year was last year. They played poorly last year, and played poorly this year. Your point?

I proved out how the Patriots, despite starting a rookie QB, still had their O-line finish in the top ten. You conveniently ignored that fact and proved just how little you knew by trying to steer the argument away from it.

So yes, it is possible for an O-line to play well with a rookie QB. Now, if you still can't grasp that concept, I could try to use doodles and crayons. Would that work out for you? :P


you wear your ignorance with so much pride....you must be a child.

Dixon isn't Cassel. I have no idea why you are so hung up on the 2008 Pats OL. They didn't even make the playoffs...

oops, I forgot... winning games doesn't matter, having a top 10 OL on the couch in January is way more important.
They were good enough to go 11-5. Maybe they didn't make the playoffs because TWO OTHER TEAMS in their division went 11-5. Or maybe their defense didn't play so well when it really mattered. I don't know, take your pick. Maybe in feltdizz world, the OL is the only unit that matters, but in the real world, football is a team sport and there are other factors at play here. And Cassel's not exactly a stellar QB. Yet the OL seemed to do fine with him.

We didn't make the playoffs in 09 either - I guess that must mean our OL is crap, huh? See why your logic fails so hard?

How your players play depends on weather you win or lose. I'm sorry you're too thick to realize that simple concept, but that's the way it is.

feltdizz
09-30-2010, 05:56 PM
Yeah, last year was last year. They played poorly last year, and played poorly this year. Your point?

I proved out how the Patriots, despite starting a rookie QB, still had their O-line finish in the top ten. You conveniently ignored that fact and proved just how little you knew by trying to steer the argument away from it.

So yes, it is possible for an O-line to play well with a rookie QB. Now, if you still can't grasp that concept, I could try to use doodles and crayons. Would that work out for you? :P


you wear your ignorance with so much pride....you must be a child.

Dixon isn't Cassel. I have no idea why you are so hung up on the 2008 Pats OL. They didn't even make the playoffs...

oops, I forgot... winning games doesn't matter, having a top 10 OL on the couch in January is way more important.
They were good enough to go 11-5. Maybe they didn't make the playoffs because TWO OTHER TEAMS in their division went 11-5. Or maybe their defense didn't play so well when it really mattered. I don't know, take your pick. Maybe in feltdizz world, the OL is the only unit that matters, but in the real world, football is a team sport and there are other factors at play here. And Cassel's not exactly a stellar QB. Yet the OL seemed to do fine with him.

We didn't make the playoffs in 09 either - I guess that must mean our OL is crap, huh? See why your logic fails so hard?

How your players play depends on weather you win or lose. I'm sorry you're too thick to realize that simple concept, but that's the way it is.

You said our OL was "crap" the last 3 years... not me.

Cassel is Joe Montana compared to Dixon right now... funny how a players play matters in NE but doesn't matter in Pittsburgh.

If football is a team sport why do you keep insisting that Dixon's play, our conservative play calling, the D stacking the box and having no fear of a vertical threat had no effect on the OL's play in the first 2 games?

You are all over the place and the only time you use a little common sense is when you are slobbering over the Pats. 8)

SteelTorch
09-30-2010, 10:58 PM
You said our OL was "crap" the last 3 years... not me.

Cassel is Joe Montana compared to Dixon right now... funny how a players play matters in NE but doesn't matter in Pittsburgh.

If football is a team sport why do you keep insisting that Dixon's play, our conservative play calling, the D stacking the box and having no fear of a vertical threat had no effect on the OL's play in the first 2 games?

You are all over the place and the only time you use a little common sense is when you are slobbering over the Pats. 8)
You implied the Pats O-line must have been bad cause they didn't make the playoffs. Using your oh-so-astounding logic, that must mean our 09 OL was just as bad. Your words, not mine. And if the Pats OL could play well with a rookie QB, why can't ours, hmm?

Oh, and Cassel was never a great QB. In his best year, he managed an 89.4 rating and 7.2 YPA. Last year, he only scraped 70, and this year it's a meager 75 with 6.4 YPA. Dixon actually had a better rating, completion %, and YPA than Cassel this season before he got injured. Don't believe me, look for yourself. Yet another example of you spouting random nonsense without actually knowing your facts. Wouldn't be the first time, though. :P

The OL been bad the past three years, and they were bad through two games. One good game is not enough to erase that. Not to anyone with common sense or an ounce of brains (which I guess is why it escapes you). 8) They're going to have to play well on a consistent basis before I label them good. Simple as that.

Captain Lemming
10-01-2010, 02:03 AM
Then we will see the true firepower of this fully operational battle station. cant wait.

Or better, "true firepower of this fully operational invisible doggy fence"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKWVCv8uWDI

feltdizz
10-01-2010, 08:27 AM
You said our OL was "crap" the last 3 years... not me.

Cassel is Joe Montana compared to Dixon right now... funny how a players play matters in NE but doesn't matter in Pittsburgh.

If football is a team sport why do you keep insisting that Dixon's play, our conservative play calling, the D stacking the box and having no fear of a vertical threat had no effect on the OL's play in the first 2 games?

You are all over the place and the only time you use a little common sense is when you are slobbering over the Pats. 8)
You implied the Pats O-line must have been bad cause they didn't make the playoffs. Using your oh-so-astounding logic, that must mean our 09 OL was just as bad. Your words, not mine. And if the Pats OL could play well with a rookie QB, why can't ours, hmm?

Oh, and Cassel was never a great QB. In his best year, he managed an 89.4 rating and 7.2 YPA. Last year, he only scraped 70, and this year it's a meager 75 with 6.4 YPA. Dixon actually had a better rating, completion %, and YPA than Cassel this season before he got injured. Don't believe me, look for yourself. Yet another example of you spouting random nonsense without actually knowing your facts. Wouldn't be the first time, though. :P

The OL been bad the past three years, and they were bad through two games. One good game is not enough to erase that. Not to anyone with common sense or an ounce of brains (which I guess is why it escapes you). 8) They're going to have to play well on a consistent basis before I label them good. Simple as that.

Watch a game... all you watch is stats. If you think Dixon is as good as Cassel then our FO has screwed us by ignoring all those trade offers for Dixon. :roll:

Put the stats down and watch a freaking game. Using your stat line Leinart should be the AZ starter... his completion percentage was through the roof. :roll:


you don't have facts.. you have stats... and most of them have been wrong.

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
10-01-2010, 08:30 AM
You claim the OL must be improved because they had a slightly better average in rushing. What if Tennessee's run stopping ability just got worse? You also claim that they stacked 8-9 in the box because there was no vertical threat. Did it ever occur to you that maybe there was no vertical threat BECAUSE the O-line couldn't protect at all - not the other way around? Batch and Dixon are both decent QB's. They've proved that they can move the ball downfield. The fact that their 3rd/4th string whatever is pretty much irrelevant. Of course there's going to be a slight drop in production - but the O-line's performance through two games was downright pathetic.

I've said it before to you, but clearly you didn't get it last time - it doesn't matter if the O-line improves slightly against one team versus the last time. This is one game. If they're still not doing as well as all the other players in the league, then it means nothing. That's why rankings are important. You can't win a game if your players aren't as good as the other guys. Simple as that. But apparently you're okay if they wallow mediocrity, so long as they're "improved" in one game compared with a year ago.

By the way, kindly specify what stats you're actually posting instead of just throwing out random numbers. K, thanks.


That's it? What if there run defense got worse? Ok...I'll take that stutter as you got nothing else for me. Weak argument. "no vertical threat BECAUSE the O-line couldn't protect at all - not the other way around" Even the Hartwig lead OL had a vertical threat. The QB dictates that. You should know that if you were a Steelers fan for a long time. Remember the Steelers had some of the best OL in the league before Ben came around. How did you beat the Steelers? Shut down the run. We couldn't come from behind & couldn't convert 3rd & longs. Put Manning behind the Buffalo Bills OL...You still have the threat of a pass. Put Dixon behind Mannings OL...You still have Dennis Dixon. If you simple don't know that the defenses are game planning against the Steelers differently without BB behind center...You don't understand football. That's ok...But stay on the porch and don't argue a point which you don't have the comprehension to understand.

Batch & Dixon are 3rd & 4th string QBs for a reason. Dixon hasn't done anything to elevate his status. You can argue he didn't have sufficient playtime yet but that would be an argument. Batch is a cerebral back-up that understands how to read defenses. A very good back-up to have just has shown to be fragile as of late. But his physical attributes over the last several years hs shown him to be serviceable for a couple games in limited attempts. Now you have went from good to decent QBs in your opinion. Which is it? There are many "decent QBs" not employed by the NFL.

"If they're still not doing as well as all the other players in the league, then it means nothing." 96/450 4.7 AVG 3rd in the league through 3 games. That's up against your "other players in the league." So it means something. 428/1,793 4.2 AVG 18th in the league in 2009 with Ben at QB. Nothing close to "mediocrity" in any book.

Finally, your last statement is Priceless. No argument for the statistics except "they are random numbers.". Completely crush your made up "take out this play-can't count that run because that guy wasn't lookin-he got blocked out so that doesn't count" stats...So you say they are made up. All on nfl.com. That would be http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats? ... &Submit=Go (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=TM&offensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&season=2010&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=true&Submit=Go) for the less intelligent. Nothing made up. Don't question my integrity on this board by saying I'm making up stats. If you can't find them I will give you a link. Nobody else in here is going to research the stats to see who is telling the truth. So to falsely accuse me of something out of desperation is degrading to yourself. Stooping to that level now puts you beneath me.

SteelTorch
10-01-2010, 10:08 AM
That's it? What if there run defense got worse? Ok...I'll take that stutter as you got nothing else for me. Weak argument. "no vertical threat BECAUSE the O-line couldn't protect at all - not the other way around" Even the Hartwig lead OL had a vertical threat. The QB dictates that. You should know that if you were a Steelers fan for a long time. Remember the Steelers had some of the best OL in the league before Ben came around. How did you beat the Steelers? Shut down the run. We couldn't come from behind & couldn't convert 3rd & longs. Put Manning behind the Buffalo Bills OL...You still have the threat of a pass. Put Dixon behind Mannings OL...You still have Dennis Dixon. If you simple don't know that the defenses are game planning against the Steelers differently without BB behind center...You don't understand football. That's ok...But stay on the porch and don't argue a point which you don't have the comprehension to understand.

Batch & Dixon are 3rd & 4th string QBs for a reason. Dixon hasn't done anything to elevate his status. You can argue he didn't have sufficient playtime yet but that would be an argument. Batch is a cerebral back-up that understands how to read defenses. A very good back-up to have just has shown to be fragile as of late. But his physical attributes over the last several years hs shown him to be serviceable for a couple games in limited attempts. Now you have went from good to decent QBs in your opinion. Which is it? There are many "decent QBs" not employed by the NFL.

"If they're still not doing as well as all the other players in the league, then it means nothing." 96/450 4.7 AVG 3rd in the league through 3 games. That's up against your "other players in the league." So it means something. 428/1,793 4.2 AVG 18th in the league in 2009 with Ben at QB. Nothing close to "mediocrity" in any book.

Finally, your last statement is Priceless. No argument for the statistics except "they are random numbers.". Completely crush your made up "take out this play-can't count that run because that guy wasn't lookin-he got blocked out so that doesn't count" stats...So you say they are made up. All on nfl.com. That would be http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats? ... &Submit=Go (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=TM&offensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&season=2010&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=true&Submit=Go) for the less intelligent. Nothing made up. Don't question my integrity on this board by saying I'm making up stats. If you can't find them I will give you a link. Nobody else in here is going to research the stats to see who is telling the truth. So to falsely accuse me of something out of desperation is degrading to yourself. Stooping to that level now puts you beneath me.
Hmm, sensitive much? You really know how to type a lot without saying anything of value.
Both Batch and Dixon have shown to be able to be a vertical threat, I don’t know what games you’re watching. You know Dixon had a 9.1 YPA average in the game against Atlanta? And Dixon did quite well in the preseason, and it was obviously good enough to be named our starting QB against Atlanta over Batch. I’d say he did plenty to elevate his status. “Decent”, “good”, whatever – don’t try to turn this around using stupid simantics. Both QB’s have shown to be good backups, and each has his own strengths and weaknesses. Simple as that.

And you’re wrong, a QB can only do so much to dictate the vertical threat. He needs help from the rest of his offense to win the game. WR’s need to be open, the OL has to protect. If the QB has no time to throw, he’s not much of a vertical threat. I thought someone who claims to know as much as football as you would know that simple factoid.

Regarding your little diatribe at the end, you’re not even reading what I type. Nowhere did I accuse you of making stuff up – now you’re just being silly and hypersensitive. I only asked you to specify what your stats mean instead of just throwing numbers at me. You just did it again in your post. “96/450 4.7 AVG 3rd in the league through 3 games”? For what? Passing, rushing, total offense? Help me out here. I don’t have time to specify everything you post because you’re too lazy to indicate which stats you’re referencing. At least I tell you what my numbers mean. Kindly show me the same courtesy, THEN I’ll get back to you.

SteelTorch
10-01-2010, 10:30 AM
Watch a game... all you watch is stats. If you think Dixon is as good as Cassel then our FO has screwed us by ignoring all those trade offers for Dixon. :roll:

Put the stats down and watch a freaking game. Using your stat line Leinart should be the AZ starter... his completion percentage was through the roof. :roll:


you don't have facts.. you have stats... and most of them have been wrong.
Stats aren't everything, but they tell a lot. You just refuse to accept them when they don't fit your point of view. :nono And when you contradict yourself with a logical fallacy, as I just pointed out, you ignore it and try change the subject, as you did just now. That's a favorite tactic of those who know they're losing.

As far as Leinart, did it occur to you a player is judged by more than completion %? Maybe it was cause he couldn't put the ball in the endzone, maybe it was because he had a mediocre YPA, or MAYBE it was because he threw no more than an average of seven passes per game against backups. Or maybe Whiz is just a dumbass for choosing Derek Anderson. Who knows, you're guess is as good as mine. But that's AZ's problem, not ours.

This argument is old and tiresome, and it's obvious you're either too stubborn to admit when you're wrong, or you really are too thick to grasp what I'm saying. But I'm not going to waste my time with it anymore. If the OL gets better, YAY. If they continue to be poor, well, I told you so. Cheers.

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
10-01-2010, 11:05 AM
Hmm, sensitive much? You really know how to type a lot without saying anything of value.
Both Batch and Dixon have shown to be able to be a vertical threat, I don’t know what games you’re watching. You know Dixon had a 9.1 YPA average in the game against Atlanta? And Dixon did quite well in the preseason, and it was obviously good enough to be named our starting QB against Atlanta over Batch. I’d say he did plenty to elevate his status. “Decent”, “good”, whatever – don’t try to turn this around using stupid simantics. Both QB’s have shown to be good backups, and each has his own strengths and weaknesses. Simple as that.

And you’re wrong, a QB can only do so much to dictate the vertical threat. He needs help from the rest of his offense to win the game. WR’s need to be open, the OL has to protect. If the QB has no time to throw, he’s not much of a vertical threat. I thought someone who claims to know as much as football as you would know that simple factoid.

Regarding your little diatribe at the end, you’re not even reading what I type. Nowhere did I accuse you of making stuff up – now you’re just being silly and hypersensitive. I only asked you to specify what your stats mean instead of just throwing numbers at me. You just did it again in your post. “96/450 4.7 AVG 3rd in the league through 3 games”? For what? Passing, rushing, total offense? Help me out here. I don’t have time to specify everything you post because you’re too lazy to indicate which stats you’re referencing. At least I tell you what my numbers mean. Kindly show me the same courtesy, THEN I’ll get back to you.

Not surprised by that brilliant opening statement.
"You really know how to type a lot without saying anything of value."
From SteelTorch. Origination: Moronic. Translation;"I don't know what to say." "I don't comprehend."

Batch & Dixon have showed nothing before game 3 to elevate there staus to anything but a 3rd & 4th stringer. Weren't you the one saying how poorly they played? They are back-ups. The defenses are not gameplanning to take the "back-ups" out of the game.

No...I'm not wrong. If there isn't a QB who shows a threat...The threat doesn't exist. In 2009, Jets had a great OL and WRs who could get open. They had no confidence in an unproven Sanchez. Gamplan changed. Over the years, the Steelers had great OL and WR who could get open. We didn't have a productive passing game because we had no QB. A good QB can change all of that by reading defenses, looking off defenders, and getting the ball out quickly. Get one with superior physical abilities throwing...Franchise. Just look back some years when Brady had nobody at WR and they went to the SB. But I couldn't expect someone who claims to know as much as football as you would know that simple factoid....Because he doesn't know that much about football.

Don't try to cloud everything now. I made several references to what stats I was posting. You knew what I was posting because you followed it up. Backpedal all you want...You made a fool of yourself with nobody's help. Bluff called. Link provided...But you already knew where I got them from. Saying it's lazy and you don't have the time. You have time to look for them and post them though! Has nothing to do with being lazy...Has everything to do with you being an idiot. If you don't know what you are looking at then move on....Don't get back to me. And don't say you didn't say I made numbers up. "By the way, kindly specify what stats you're actually posting instead of just throwing out random numbers. K, thanks." While you are laying on the ground pi$$in & $hitin yourself...You are saying "I don't know!" Don't pout about it. Stop your bottom lip from trembling...Grow a spine...And man up. When you say something to go beneath me...I don't respect you. The End.

feltdizz
10-01-2010, 11:13 AM
Watch a game... all you watch is stats. If you think Dixon is as good as Cassel then our FO has screwed us by ignoring all those trade offers for Dixon. :roll:

Put the stats down and watch a freaking game. Using your stat line Leinart should be the AZ starter... his completion percentage was through the roof. :roll:


you don't have facts.. you have stats... and most of them have been wrong.
Stats aren't everything, but they tell a lot. You just refuse to accept them when they don't fit your point of view. :nono And when you contradict yourself with a logical fallacy, as I just pointed out, you ignore it and try change the subject, as you did just now. That's a favorite tactic of those who know they're losing.

As far as Leinart, did it occur to you a player is judged by more than completion %? Maybe it was cause he couldn't put the ball in the endzone, maybe it was because he had a mediocre YPA, or MAYBE it was because he threw no more than an average of seven passes per game against backups. Or maybe Whiz is just a dumbass for choosing Derek Anderson. Who knows, you're guess is as good as mine. But that's AZ's problem, not ours.

This argument is old and tiresome, and it's obvious you're either too stubborn to admit when you're wrong, or you really are too thick to grasp what I'm saying. But I'm not going to waste my time with it anymore. If the OL gets better, YAY. If they continue to be poor, well, I told you so. Cheers.

you have been proven wrong multiple times.

Anyone who thinks Dixon stretched the field and kept the D honest in his first 2 games is a fool.

You based your whole argument on OL rankings and refused to take the QB play into account. Keep bashing the OL, keep pushing your stats... I'll watch the game and form my opinion based on the film.

Stats definitely mean something but you can't throw out who is under center because it hurts your argument.

I'm not jumping all over the place or avoiding anything. You felt the need to use the 2008 Pats OL as your reference point. Instead of discussing our 3rd and 4th string QB's you ran to the Pats to make your point. Talk about losing...

We are 3-0 and the OL and QB situation has improved...and you are on here dumping on our OL. You keep on doing what you are doing. :wink:

SteelTorch
10-01-2010, 01:39 PM
Not surprised by that brilliant opening statement.
"You really know how to type a lot without saying anything of value."
From SteelTorch. Origination: Moronic. Translation;"I don't know what to say." "I don't comprehend."

Batch & Dixon have showed nothing before game 3 to elevate there staus to anything but a 3rd & 4th stringer. Weren't you the one saying how poorly they played? They are back-ups. The defenses are not gameplanning to take the "back-ups" out of the game.

No...I'm not wrong. If there isn't a QB who shows a threat...The threat doesn't exist. In 2009, Jets had a great OL and WRs who could get open. They had no confidence in an unproven Sanchez. Gamplan changed. Over the years, the Steelers had great OL and WR who could get open. We didn't have a productive passing game because we had no QB. A good QB can change all of that by reading defenses, looking off defenders, and getting the ball out quickly. Get one with superior physical abilities throwing...Franchise. Just look back some years when Brady had nobody at WR and they went to the SB. But I couldn't expect someone who claims to know as much as football as you would know that simple factoid....Because he doesn't know that much about football.

Don't try to cloud everything now. I made several references to what stats I was posting. You knew what I was posting because you followed it up. Backpedal all you want...You made a fool of yourself with nobody's help. Bluff called. Link provided...But you already knew where I got them from. Saying it's lazy and you don't have the time. You have time to look for them and post them though! Has nothing to do with being lazy...Has everything to do with you being an idiot. If you don't know what you are looking at then move on....Don't get back to me. And don't say you didn't say I made numbers up. "By the way, kindly specify what stats you're actually posting instead of just throwing out random numbers. K, thanks." While you are laying on the ground pi$$in & $hitin yourself...You are saying "I don't know!" Don't pout about it. Stop your bottom lip from trembling...Grow a spine...And man up. When you say something to go beneath me...I don't respect you. The End.
For someone who talks a lot about "respect" and things "beneath" himself, you're not hesitant to pull out the childish banter. Swearing and name calling won't get you anywhere, amigo. In fact, it only makes you look bad. So take your own advice, and man up. :nono

Now as far as your stats go: I DID make references to them, but only after I looked them up. You didn't specify anything because we were talking about several things at once. Then you throw out some random numbers and rankings and expect me to know exactly what you're talking about? I asked you clarify what you were posting, and you somehow equated that with accusing you of "making stuff up". Stop being such a baby.

Now on to your stat: you were wrong. Well, sort of. We're third in total yards, but we actually rank 6th in rushing efficiency. Before the Tampa Bay game, we ranked 15th in rushing efficiency. So no, they weren't doing well those first two games in that category either. How do you pin that one on the QB? Even with the rise in rushing efficiency, we're still highest in sack percentage. Yeah we had Dixon in, but I watched the Titans game. He had no time to throw. Our protection was bad, case closed. They got better against Tampa Bay. Will they be good all season? I don't know. But I'm not going to call them good until they start showing that level of play more often. :wink:

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
10-01-2010, 03:24 PM
For someone who talks a lot about "respect" and things "beneath" himself, you're not hesitant to pull out the childish banter. Swearing and name calling won't get you anywhere, amigo. In fact, it only makes you look bad. So take your own advice, and man up. :nono

Now as far as your stats go: I DID make references to them, but only after I looked them up. You didn't specify anything because we were talking about several things at once. Then you throw out some random numbers and rankings and expect me to know exactly what you're talking about? I asked you clarify what you were posting, and you somehow equated that with accusing you of "making stuff up". Stop being such a baby.

Now on to your stat: you were wrong. Well, sort of. We're third in total yards, but we actually rank 6th in rushing efficiency. Before the Tampa Bay game, we ranked 15th in rushing efficiency. So no, they weren't doing well those first two games in that category either. How do you pin that one on the QB? Even with the rise in rushing efficiency, we're still highest in sack percentage. Yeah we had Dixon in, but I watched the Titans game. He had no time to throw. Our protection was bad, case closed. They got better against Tampa Bay. Will they be good all season? I don't know. But I'm not going to call them good until they start showing that level of play more often. :wink:


Referencing "childish banter" and calling me a baby doesn't bother me. I could care less if I offended you. When you take a debate to calling out the posters maturity level...Is reaching...Gasping for air. I don't care if I hurt your feelings. Complaining about swearing & name calling...You are blindly walking into walls over & over. Calling me amigo. It's embarrasing and sad. I said I don't respect you anymore because you made a false accusation. I hold you beneath me because you went that low because your argument had no merrit. Choose your words differently if that wasn't what you were implying. When you tell someone they are throwing out randow numbers your are implying they are making stuff up. You made your bed...Sleep in it.

To go back and try to justify things by saying you didn't understand what they were is absurd. You knew very well what I was talking about. So are you pretending to be an intellectual or are you lying? It is simple...You can only be one. I fail to believe you were that dumb not to know what I was talking about.

Do you read your posts? You say feltdizz "ignores it and try change the subject" when that is exactly what you have done through this whole post. You talk about childish banter and name calling but you call me a baby. You are a hypocrite in many of your statements and very condescending. The fact that you repeatedly grab a stat to support your argument in the current state of the Steelers shows your deficiency for football knowledge. A stat bookworm. There was a guy like that on the Trib board. I think he had a radio show in the back woods where he had 15 listeners. That isn't you is it?

I will man up anytime I am wrong. We won't see you do it. I'm not wrong here. I think it is you & JD who share the same feelings about the OL. There isn't one person in the media or the coaching staff that agrees with you. Haven't seen one article written that supports your argument. Have seen & heard many that commend what the OL & BA have done in regards to success despite not having BB on the field. The only stat on offense that has any creditability given the situation is the run game. You wouldn't expect that to be even in the top half of the league given the situation. The fact that they sit 3rd is outright impressive. No if, ands, buts about it....Just-Plain-Impressive.

feltdizz
10-01-2010, 03:56 PM
torch...






:owned

SteelTorch
10-01-2010, 04:54 PM
Referencing "childish banter" and calling me a baby doesn't bother me. I could care less if I offended you. When you take a debate to calling out the posters maturity level...Is reaching...Gasping for air. I don't care if I hurt your feelings. Complaining about swearing & name calling...You are blindly walking into walls over & over. Calling me amigo. It's embarrasing and sad. I said I don't respect you anymore because you made a false accusation. I hold you beneath me because you went that low because your argument had no merrit. Choose your words differently if that wasn't what you were implying. When you tell someone they are throwing out randow numbers your are implying they are making stuff up. You made your bed...Sleep in it.

To go back and try to justify things by saying you didn't understand what they were is absurd. You knew very well what I was talking about. So are you pretending to be an intellectual or are you lying? It is simple...You can only be one. I fail to believe you were that dumb not to know what I was talking about.

Do you read your posts? You say feltdizz "ignores it and try change the subject" when that is exactly what you have done through this whole post. You talk about childish banter and name calling but you call me a baby. You are a hypocrite in many of your statements and very condescending. The fact that you repeatedly grab a stat to support your argument in the current state of the Steelers shows your deficiency for football knowledge. A stat bookworm. There was a guy like that on the Trib board. I think he had a radio show in the back woods where he had 15 listeners. That isn't you is it?

I will man up anytime I am wrong. We won't see you do it. I'm not wrong here. I think it is you & JD who share the same feelings about the OL. There isn't one person in the media or the coaching staff that agrees with you. Haven't seen one article written that supports your argument. Have seen & heard many that commend what the OL & BA have done in regards to success despite not having BB on the field. The only stat on offense that has any creditability given the situation is the run game. You wouldn't expect that to be even in the top half of the league given the situation. The fact that they sit 3rd is outright impressive. No if, ands, buts about it....Just-Plain-Impressive.

I'm calling out your maturity only because you're giving me reason to (quite a long post for someone who claims not to be bothered). I didn't call you a baby until you started acting like one - namely when you lost your temper and started making it personal. Man up and move on. If you can't try to argue without blowing your top, then you've lost already. :Binky

And no, the phrase "random numbers" is not the same thing as claiming you're making stuff up. You were throwing out a bunch of stats without indicating what they were. You did it multiple times, I asked you to clarify, and you took it the wrong way. STOP BEING SO SENSITIVE.

Now, back to the stats: the OL doesn't rank third, they rank 6th. When you measure the O-line, you need to look at efficiency. That's what counts more. They could rank 1st in rushing yards, but it doesn't mean anything if they're gaining only 2 yards per attempt. Total yardage is just a quantity stat - it doesn't mean much. 6th place is good, but it's the only thing they're good at - and it's too early to say the OL is now improved. That's just the way it is. :wink:

I'm looking at multiple stats here. Namely, their ability to open holes, their ability to protect the QB, and to an extent, their 3rd down success. And, contrary to what you might think, I DO watch the games. I saw how they were beaten like a rag doll by the Titans D-line, and that's why I didn't give them a free pass after the Tampa game.

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
10-02-2010, 09:38 AM
I'm calling out your maturity only because you're giving me reason to (quite a long post for someone who claims not to be bothered). I didn't call you a baby until you started acting like one - namely when you lost your temper and started making it personal. Man up and move on. If you can't try to argue without blowing your top, then you've lost already. :Binky

And no, the phrase "random numbers" is not the same thing as claiming you're making stuff up. You were throwing out a bunch of stats without indicating what they were. You did it multiple times, I asked you to clarify, and you took it the wrong way. STOP BEING SO SENSITIVE.

Now, back to the stats: the OL doesn't rank third, they rank 6th. When you measure the O-line, you need to look at efficiency. That's what counts more. They could rank 1st in rushing yards, but it doesn't mean anything if they're gaining only 2 yards per attempt. Total yardage is just a quantity stat - it doesn't mean much. 6th place is good, but it's the only thing they're good at - and it's too early to say the OL is now improved. That's just the way it is. :wink:

I'm looking at multiple stats here. Namely, their ability to open holes, their ability to protect the QB, and to an extent, their 3rd down success. And, contrary to what you might think, I DO watch the games. I saw how they were beaten like a rag doll by the Titans D-line, and that's why I didn't give them a free pass after the Tampa game.
I never gave you a reason to call out my maturity. You posts are filled with sarcasm as is mine. First reference to immaturity was you...Because your argument had no merrit and you had no where else to go. You were getting it from several different posters and became overwhelmed. And you are still at it with the binky post. Thanks for continuing to show your lack of maturity.

I lose my temper when someone accuses me of making stuff up. "Random numbers" is making stuff up. The word you should of used finally came to you mind....If that was your intentions. You should of used "Random Stats" and I wouldn't have taken offense. I would have understood your problem. I will give you the benefit of a doubt and go back to being more civil with you.

Really, you don't have to tell me how to measure an OL succes or grade any production. To your surprise, the coaches don't look at the stats Monday in film. It is in game. Stats do have some reflection on that when all things are equal. But again, even with the state of the offense, which you don't take into consideration, the numbers are impressive. Making you understand that what they are doing without their franchise QB, is a dead issue that will never be accomplished.

The offense is 3rd in yards per game, 6th in avg per rush, 5th in att per game, & tied for first with gains over 20 yards. I'll say again...6th in AVG per attempt. Given the state of the steelers, that is impressive. Given the fact they are last in pass attempts per game makes those stats solid. To say their sacks are up and bring that into the argument just shows your lack of understanding the game. I just tried to be informative and show you what you need to look for over the first 4 weeks. 8 & 9 man fronts is the constant through 3 games. They are committing a S in the box and walking up the FS or are in man and follow the WR into the box. Not understanding how difficult it is to be successful running a playaction pass when a team is run blitzing is what you are not taking into consideration. Not understanding that the defenses are committing extra rushers because they can defend with a single deep safety or go with man. The Steelers will see alot more cover 2, 3 deep, and umbrella when BB is at QB.

The OL is opening huge holes. Even against +1 & +2 fronts. You won't see it consistantly until they have BB back. 3rd down conversions are bad and that was a problem last year. However, can't put anything on that until they have all of their offense on the field. If this was the entire offense he Steelers had for 2010 I would be highly critical...But it isn't. There are extraordinary circumstances that need to be taken into consideration.

The Steelers were not man handled in TN. I thought you said you watched the game. In the first half the Steelers were 15/69 with a 4.6 AVG per rush. How is that man handled? Mendehall was 9/40 for a 4.4 AVG. Every second half posession was a rush on 1st & 2nd down except a 1st & 5 from the TN 7. Every other series on 1st & 2nd down was a called run. If you don't undertsand the game management that was in place...there is no use arguing.

You aren't willing to "Crown Them" through three games but you are willing to "Condem Them". Does that make sense? There hasn't been any reason for me to man up in this discussion. I am a man of my word and we will see as the season unfolds if you are a man of yours.

AngryAsian
10-02-2010, 03:34 PM
Big props to both of you... great debate and though at varied points tempers flared, you guys corralled the discussion back to the differing viewpoints, both having good supportive data and abandoned the potential for slinging insults. Thanks a lot guys. :Bow

SteelTorch
10-02-2010, 05:43 PM
I never gave you a reason to call out my maturity. You posts are filled with sarcasm as is mine. First reference to immaturity was you...Because your argument had no merrit and you had no where else to go. You were getting it from several different posters and became overwhelmed. And you are still at it with the binky post. Thanks for continuing to show your lack of maturity.

I lose my temper when someone accuses me of making stuff up. "Random numbers" is making stuff up. The word you should of used finally came to you mind....If that was your intentions. You should of used "Random Stats" and I wouldn't have taken offense. I would have understood your problem. I will give you the benefit of a doubt and go back to being more civil with you.

Really, you don't have to tell me how to measure an OL succes or grade any production. To your surprise, the coaches don't look at the stats Monday in film. It is in game. Stats do have some reflection on that when all things are equal. But again, even with the state of the offense, which you don't take into consideration, the numbers are impressive. Making you understand that what they are doing without their franchise QB, is a dead issue that will never be accomplished.

The offense is 3rd in yards per game, 6th in avg per rush, 5th in att per game, & tied for first with gains over 20 yards. I'll say again...6th in AVG per attempt. Given the state of the steelers, that is impressive. Given the fact they are last in pass attempts per game makes those stats solid. To say their sacks are up and bring that into the argument just shows your lack of understanding the game. I just tried to be informative and show you what you need to look for over the first 4 weeks. 8 & 9 man fronts is the constant through 3 games. They are committing a S in the box and walking up the FS or are in man and follow the WR into the box. Not understanding how difficult it is to be successful running a playaction pass when a team is run blitzing is what you are not taking into consideration. Not understanding that the defenses are committing extra rushers because they can defend with a single deep safety or go with man. The Steelers will see alot more cover 2, 3 deep, and umbrella when BB is at QB.

The OL is opening huge holes. Even against +1 & +2 fronts. You won't see it consistantly until they have BB back. 3rd down conversions are bad and that was a problem last year. However, can't put anything on that until they have all of their offense on the field. If this was the entire offense he Steelers had for 2010 I would be highly critical...But it isn't. There are extraordinary circumstances that need to be taken into consideration.

The Steelers were not man handled in TN. I thought you said you watched the game. In the first half the Steelers were 15/69 with a 4.6 AVG per rush. How is that man handled? Mendehall was 9/40 for a 4.4 AVG. Every second half posession was a rush on 1st & 2nd down except a 1st & 5 from the TN 7. Every other series on 1st & 2nd down was a called run. If you don't undertsand the game management that was in place...there is no use arguing.

You aren't willing to "Crown Them" through three games but you are willing to "Condem Them". Does that make sense? There hasn't been any reason for me to man up in this discussion. I am a man of my word and we will see as the season unfolds if you are a man of yours.
Gee, I'm glad we cleared that up. :roll:

Really? You think the coaches don't look at stats at all? I understand what they're trying to do without their franchise QB - but they were still too bad to be given a free pass. Even after the Tampa Bay game, they were among the worst in the league and allowing sacks, helping convert third downs (which you even admit is a problem). Only the running game was above average, and even that wasn't until after the Tampa Bay game.

By the way, when you say "offense", you really mean "rushing offense". Our entire offense is still ranked 26th in the league overall. As far as Tennessee, do you realize that 28 of those rushing yards came on scrambles from DD - one of which went for 21 (the other two combined for only 7). I guess it's all well and good that Mendenhall rushed for 4.4 yards average in one half, but he finished the game with only 3 yards per attempt. Our running backs combined for 78 yards with 2.7 yards per attempt - that's even worse. So yes, I'd say the OL was pretty manhandled that game. If they were trying to just manage the clock, they sure weren't doing a good job. Part of clock management is keeping the ball out of the other team's hands, and they weren't doing that with the way they ran.

If I am condemning them, it's only because they have been a liability for three years, and one game is not enough to change that fact. They've had good games in the past, but overall have been poor. With that in mind, I sure as hell am not ready to crown them after one well-played game. Once we get further into the season, then I'll decide whether they're truly better or not.

NKySteeler
10-02-2010, 06:31 PM
Big props to both of you... great debate and though at varied points tempers flared, you guys corralled the discussion back to the differing viewpoints, both having good supportive data and abandoned the potential for slinging insults. Thanks a lot guys. :Bow

I agree with Asian....

This is one of the best bantering arguments I've seen on this board in quite a while...

... I'm not gonna jump into it because all the points I would'a brought-up have already been mentioned...

... Thanx to both of you for a VERY good/informative banter session without the mud-slinging... It's much appreciated by viewers/lurkers such as myself... Kudos to both of you!

fordfixer
10-02-2010, 09:02 PM
Big props to both of you... great debate and though at varied points tempers flared, you guys corralled the discussion back to the differing viewpoints, both having good supportive data and abandoned the potential for slinging insults. Thanks a lot guys. :Bow

I agree with Asian....

This is one of the best bantering arguments I've seen on this board in quite a while...

... I'm not gonna jump into it because all the points I would'a brought-up have already been mentioned...

... Thanx to both of you for a VERY good/informative banter session without the mud-slinging... It's much appreciated by viewers/lurkers such as myself... Kudos to both of you!



:Agree With NKy .........I mean Asain ........... or what ever ......... :Agree :lol: :lol:

Crash
10-02-2010, 10:56 PM
No Essex, and they ran right well all day. You can't have guards who can't move. Essex plays like he has cement in his shoes.

SteelTorch
10-04-2010, 10:04 PM
Bump.

:stirpot

feltdizz
10-04-2010, 10:45 PM
The OL was outstanding last game.

BradshawsHairdresser
10-04-2010, 11:48 PM
The OL was outstanding last game.

Against the Ravens? Really???

Were you watching the same game I was watching?

I don't think the OL, especially the interior OL, looked like anything special at all in that game. Hopefully, it was just one game where they weren't at their best. But "outstanding"?

feltdizz
10-05-2010, 09:04 AM
The OL was outstanding last game.

Against the Ravens? Really???

Were you watching the same game I was watching?

I don't think the OL, especially the interior OL, looked like anything special at all in that game. Hopefully, it was just one game where they weren't at their best. But "outstanding"?

yes.. besides the penalties the OL play was outstanding IMO.

it's the Rats and we always have problems running on them... regardless of record or stats.

we actually had more success on the ground then usual... not sure why you think the interior was so bad.

ikestops85
10-05-2010, 10:12 AM
The OL was outstanding last game.

Against the Ravens? Really???

Were you watching the same game I was watching?

I don't think the OL, especially the interior OL, looked like anything special at all in that game. Hopefully, it was just one game where they weren't at their best. But "outstanding"?

yes.. besides the penalties the OL play was outstanding IMO.

it's the Rats and we always have problems running on them... regardless of record or stats.

we actually had more success on the ground then usual... not sure why you think the interior was so bad.

I don't know whether I would say they were outstanding but I thought they played a solid game against a tough defense. The Ravens always get sky high when they play us and it seems we have to fight for every yard we get on the ground.

One thing I couldn't understand is when we got the ball deep in our own territory we could gash them for 5, 6, or 7 yards a carry but when we got the ball in their territory we got nothing on the ground.

I have to give the Ravens some credit. They are a good ball club and they played a good game. Next time we meet I'm betting the outcome is different.

feltdizz
10-05-2010, 01:03 PM
The OL was outstanding last game.

Against the Ravens? Really???

Were you watching the same game I was watching?

I don't think the OL, especially the interior OL, looked like anything special at all in that game. Hopefully, it was just one game where they weren't at their best. But "outstanding"?

yes.. besides the penalties the OL play was outstanding IMO.

it's the Rats and we always have problems running on them... regardless of record or stats.

we actually had more success on the ground then usual... not sure why you think the interior was so bad.

I don't know whether I would say they were outstanding but I thought they played a solid game against a tough defense. The Ravens always get sky high when they play us and it seems we have to fight for every yard we get on the ground.

One thing I couldn't understand is when we got the ball deep in our own territory we could gash them for 5, 6, or 7 yards a carry but when we got the ball in their territory we got nothing on the ground.

I have to give the Ravens some credit. They are a good ball club and they played a good game. Next time we meet I'm betting the outcome is different.

maybe outstanding is a little too much since we lost... but given our history against the Ravens in the trenches I think there play was very good.

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
10-05-2010, 01:34 PM
I have no complaints. They played well. I saw Pouncey get beat on a line stunt. Little disappointed with Kemo on some plays but perhaps it was the injury slowing him some. For the Ravens and the almighty fear Batch put in them beating them with his arm...B+ in my book. We have bench mark game to see how they do against them in game 2 with BB at QB. So all who hate will have something to compare to.

SteelTorch
10-05-2010, 01:37 PM
I have no complaints. They played well. I saw Pouncey get beat on a line stunt. Little disappointed with Kemo on some plays but perhaps it was the injury slowing him some. For the Ravens and the almighty fear Batch put in them beating them with his arm...B+ in my book. We have bench mark game to see how they do against them in game 2 with BB at QB. So all who hate will have something to compare to.
Don't hold your breath. :wink:

feltdizz
10-05-2010, 01:54 PM
I have no complaints. They played well. I saw Pouncey get beat on a line stunt. Little disappointed with Kemo on some plays but perhaps it was the injury slowing him some. For the Ravens and the almighty fear Batch put in them beating them with his arm...B+ in my book. We have bench mark game to see how they do against them in game 2 with BB at QB. So all who hate will have something to compare to.
Don't hold your breath. :wink:

please hold yours! :wink:

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
10-05-2010, 04:31 PM
I have no complaints. They played well. I saw Pouncey get beat on a line stunt. Little disappointed with Kemo on some plays but perhaps it was the injury slowing him some. For the Ravens and the almighty fear Batch put in them beating them with his arm...B+ in my book. We have bench mark game to see how they do against them in game 2 with BB at QB. So all who hate will have something to compare to.
Don't hold your breath. :wink:
Not worried. Just remember, the higher up you put yourself on that pedestal the further you will fall. Won't be the last time I'm right or the first time you are wrong. :wink:

flippy
10-05-2010, 04:41 PM
I'd give them a B/C for this week.

Baltimore's OLine gets an A which I think may have been the difference in this game. Woodley and Harrison were held in check. And Joe Flacco had lots of time for much of the game.

I thought it was interesting to note that Michael Oher held his own against Harrison, but was abused last year by Woodley. Harrison is a stud and all, but he's got just one pass rush move. We need another Woodley type of player to sub occassionally for Harrison on the days his bull rush just doesn't cut it.

Another note on our line. Everyone knows we're gonna run and we're probably going right and we even send a receiver in motion to the right to make sure the slow people know what we're doing. And we still got some good yards out of Mendy.

Baltimore confused us a bit and Ngata is a stud that's tough to deal with. But all in all, we didn't play too bad up front.

I'm sticking with my feeling that this line is gonna bulldoze people come playoff time.