Is it more important to have a great OL BEFORE getting a "franchise QB?"

[Broncoknight30]

I wonder how many QBs had HoF careers that had those HoF careers due to their great OL. Aikman for example. Now, he was certainly good. No doubt. Of course he had 3 SBs and benefited behind by far the most dominant OL in the league. That OL gave Emmitt Smith great holes (he was a great RB too). Obviously benefited greatly to a passing game that was just efficient.

That is just one example. I know I am not exactly saying something that we don't already know. However it seems to me that many think a "FRANCHISE QB" is so much more important to get, even before establishing a great OL. Which imo is every bit as hard or even more difficult to establish.

Is Prescott really that much better than every rookie, or is he greatly benefiting from a great OL? Not saying he is bad, but I am willing to bet if he was playing behind the OL here, he would be having all kinds of problems.

I have said it before and I will be repeat it....

Great OLs make average QBs good and good QBs great. For all of us contemplating what this franchise needs. IMO, the two places to spend the money on is a the defense and the OL. If those two areas are solid, the franchise will always be very good. Even Tom Brady becomes less than average when that sterilized pocket is pushed back into his face. Watch how he did against the NASCAR DL of the Giants when they wreaked havoc on their OL? When he does not have a clean pocket to step into, he is ordinary.

[Northman]

There's no doubt that Denver has neglected the OL in terms of finding more quality players for those positions. But, as an organization you are also reliant upon what is available to you at any given moment or year. So while im not sure if SIemian or Lynch will be the future Denver has made their decisions based upon need and what they felt was worth the draft pick and money (FA) at the time of their decisions. Elway was great long before the championship rings arrived and while you could point to the OL being a part of the struggle before that there were other issues as well whether it be coaching, the running game, the defense, etc. In order to win championships virtually everything has to come together as a franchise and team. Lsst year we really had no Offense let alone Oline but still managed to get it done. While that isnt going to work every year it shows it can get done and despite the offensive woes we still had a QB that understood the situation and took his ability, leadership, and experience and helped achieve that goal despite the poor Oline. Having a great Oline helps but even in the case of Dallas where the Oline has been top 5 the last 2-3 years they still have yet to seal the deal (even though this year it may change). I would guess that Prescott isnt so much better than every other rookie and has benefited from the Oline and strong running game. But i have managed to catch his games and its also his demeanor and his own ability that has helped that team at times throughout the year. Again, its a combination of a lot of things to be successful. Its about everything clicking at the right time and having the player chemistry working at the right time.

[spikerman]

I'm a firm believer in building teams from the interior out. If I was starting a team and could only be strong at one position it would be OL.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Bpa

[MOtorboat]

I'll take the quarterback.

[Valar Morghulis]

Name three average quarterbacks that have won multiple championships because of their lines

Manning
Brady
Wilson
Flacco
E Manning
Rodgers

Whilst E manning and flacco are average IMO, they both played lights out to get those lombardis

I would take the quarterback and build around him.

[Nomad]

Name three average quarterbacks that have won multiple championships because of their lines

Manning
Brady
Wilson
Flacco
E Manning
Rodgers

Whilst E manning and flacco are average IMO, they both played lights out to get those lombardis

I would take the quarterback and build around him.

Colts are trying that.

[Nomad]

What's the Patriots secret? That's the real question.

[Northman]

Rodgers, Wilson, and Flacco have only won 1 Championship a piece.

[Nomad]

I hate referring to HS because it seems moot compared to the NFL, but my HS coach was a firm believer in building the lines (offense and defense), starting with a damn good center.

[Valar Morghulis]

Rodgers, Wilson, and Flacco have only won 1 Championship a piece.

Lol, yeah I know, I was just starting the last few Superbowl winning quarterbacks, but never alluded to that fact!!

[spikerman]

What's the Patriots secret? That's the real question.

Cheating. I thought we already established that. :D

[Joel]

Yes—how many times must I say that? :tongue:

[Broncoknight30]

Name three average quarterbacks that have won multiple championships because of their lines

Manning
Brady
Wilson
Flacco
E Manning
Rodgers

Whilst E manning and flacco are average IMO, they both played lights out to get those lombardis

I would take the quarterback and build around him.

I think real dynamic defenses that are beyond just "solid" often hide weaknesses on an offense. E Manning, basically twice. I thought that first SB against the Pats the entire DL of the Giants should have received the MVP. I mean the Giants scored....17 points and that defense held the highest scoring offense in history (to that point) to 14 I think?

Brady, it is interesting. That OL (especially the center and guard play) probably the most underrated part of that team. Especially in his first 3 SBs. He never passed for 4000 yards or 30 TDs in those 3 SB seasons that they won it. Like the Giants DL getting the MVP, I thought Ty Law should have received the MVP against the Rams. They held the greatest show on turf to 17 points. He returned an int for a TD. BTW, in that play off run that year, it was a lot like Manning's last year. I think he had like ONE TD pass the entire play offs.

I see what you are saying. I do think a lot of those teams did have very OLs. Not dominating, but I see what you are saying.

Like I said, I think an OL elevates the play of a QB. It also diminishes the play of a QB if it is horrible.

[Poet]

At one point the Browns had the best line in football....


But you can get a young guy killed. And most of the time you get a franchise QB by developing them....

[Valar Morghulis]

Colts are trying that.

Nah, they are flat out failing to build a team.

[Nomad]

Nah, they are flat out failing to build a team.

True!

[Poet]

Building an o-line is not *that* hard. It boggles my mind how badly the Colts have done on that. If Elway has neglected the line (I'm not sure I buy that argument) at least he built a historic defense that won a SB. The colts have built.....a very fast WR corp.

[Northman]

Building an o-line is not *that* hard. It boggles my mind how badly the Colts have done on that. If Elway has neglected the line (I'm not sure I buy that argument) at least he built a historic defense that won a SB. The colts have built.....a very fast WR corp.

In my defense when i say John has neglected the line im talking more about who he pays for in FA and who he tries to draft. But as i said he may be drafting and more concerned with other positions currently than Oline.

[Poet]

In my defense when i say John has neglected the line im talking more about who he pays for in FA and who he tries to draft. But as i said he may be drafting and more concerned with other positions currently than Oline.

If it came across as me calling you out please know that wasn't what I was doing. That 'line' is becoming a little more present than in past weeks.

[spikerman]

In my defense when i say John has neglected the line im talking more about who he pays for in FA and who he tries to draft. But as i said he may be drafting and more concerned with other positions currently than Oline.

That's surprising too considering the great success he had as a player once Denver had a dominant offensive line.

[Northman]

That's surprising too considering the great success he had as a player once Denver had a dominant offensive line.

Well it may just be he isnt quite sold on the players that are out there or feels our guys need more time. I disagree obviously as do some other people im sure but who knows how he views certain players at this point.

[Poet]

Elway also had a great line made of castoffs. I think he trusts his OC guru to make some magic happen.

[slim]

What's the Patriots secret? That's the real question.

Tom Lady

[Mike]

Elway also had a great line made of castoffs. I think he trusts his OC guru to make some magic happen.

So he is bringing Alex Gibbs back?

[Poet]

So he is bringing Alex Gibbs back?

Damn!

[Simple Jaded]

I'll take the quarterback.

I used to believe this down to my bones, but when Osweiler's getting Peyton Manning money I think I'd rather dump that cap space into the defense and OL and roll with a rookie QB every 4-5 years.

If we're talking a true franchise QB I still tend to agree.

[MOtorboat]

I used to believe this down to my bones, but when Osweiler's getting Peyton Manning money I think I'd rather dump that cap space into the defense and OL and roll with a rookie QB every 4-5 years.

If we're talking a true franchise QB I still tend to agree.

I still believe that a franchise should be built QB-DE/OLB-CB-LT

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

I used to believe this down to my bones, but when Osweiler's getting Peyton Manning money I think I'd rather dump that cap space into the defense and OL and roll with a rookie QB every 4-5 years.

If we're talking a true franchise QB I still tend to agree.

Good post....sun on a dogs ass and all that stuff.

[Simple Jaded]

I still believe that a franchise should be built QB-DE/OLB-CB-LT

Hard to argue, 99 times out of 100 it's far too late to draft a QB when you've already built a contender. Draft a QB with cornerstone potential and take your lumps while you build the team around him.

However, if that QB turns out to be a Brock Osweiler situation Imma go the Trevor Lynch/Paxton Lynch route instead.

[NightTerror218]

Colts have a crappy line and legitimate QB and make the playoffs and can beat any team in league if they are on.

[Simple Jaded]

Take Jacksonville for example, if Bortles gets an Osweiler offer you have to let him walk. If you can get him for a reasonable $12 MM/per with a reasonable dead cap number I would absolutely continue that path. But those contracts don't exist at the moment.

[I Eat Staples]

A great line is nothing without a good QB. A great QB will make the line better, or hide its deficiencies. Seattle's OL is even worse than ours, but Wilson more than makes up for it.

OL is still extremely important, but QB decides the outcomes of games more than any one position in any sport. Probably even more than a goalie in hockey or pitcher in baseball.

[Simple Jaded]

Fwiw, none of this means you can't try to have both. You just can't draft Sampro in the 2nd round and you have to give these guys more time and better coaching. Teams need to be building an OL years in advance, that's just the nature of the game today. The days of keeping 8 OL and dressing 6 for gameday is over.

[nevcraw]

Look - Denison and kubes could do a heck of a lot more to protect this OL as could Trevor. 3 seconds to release a ball is shit. boot legs, roll out, quick screens running back screens etc and quick running back dump offs could make the OL look less like crap. Also try for fun throwing the ball away on bad plays. Diagnosing a blitz would be cool. We would have won at least 3 more games if the play calling and qb diagnosis was a smidge better.
I want Denison and the OL line coach gone. Restart the process and get new blood. There will be good coaches out there and kubes needs to take hard look at his system. It hasn't worked that much in years and he didn't even use half of the old WC crap that would have saved the OL from itself.

[Hawgdriver]

Cheating. I thought we already established that. :D

So........what's holding us back?

:couch:

[Hawgdriver]

just kidding

[Hawgdriver]

mostly

[Hawgdriver]

I used to believe this down to my bones, but when Osweiler's getting Peyton Manning money I think I'd rather dump that cap space into the defense and OL and roll with a rookie QB every 4-5 years.

If we're talking a true franchise QB I still tend to agree.

"how to win" seems to change from year to year. gotta stay one step ahead.

[Joel]

Hard to argue, 99 times out of 100 it's far too late to draft a QB when you've already built a contender. Draft a QB with cornerstone potential and take your lumps while you build the team around him.

However, if that QB turns out to be a Brock Osweiler situation Imma go the Trevor Lynch/Paxton Lynch route instead.
No, it's the other way around: If you think it's hard to find a SINGLE legit QB before age and FA breaks down a contender, try finding no less than FIVE legit linemen. Mannings Denver tenure's an extreme case, yet representative: How many good years did he have left to wait for us to build him a line? Thank God he had Wades D, because even during the best passing season EVER he spent a SB blowout running for his life, not even getting a FIRST DOWN till the middle of the SECOND quarter, and never scoring until the FINAL quarter.

Yeah, the Colts are trying it now, as the Browns have for TWENTY YEARS with nothing to show for it but yet another imminent #1 overall pick. The Colts already HAD a playoff team, yet what's Lucks playoff record? One and done, 1-1, then an AFCCG two years ago: Last year they couldn't even REACH the playoffs despite being in arguably the WORST division in the NFL. Partly because he was playing with lacerated organs by midseason.

Countless top QB picks have been notoriously dismal failures; what's the most plausible explanation?

1) The ENTIRE NFL is INCAPABLE of decent scouting or
2) The way top picks are "earned" tends to mean even the best rookie QBs are set up to fail.

Not that it matters, because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy like the SECAA rankings: David Carr was an awful QB who just coincidentally had an extremely talented kid brother, it's CERTAINLY wasn't that Houston starting their franchise by spending their #1 overall pick doomed him to failure. I mean, don't ALL QBs average FIFTY sacks/season the first FIVE years of his career? Bearing in mind that a young QBs best friend is a solid running game that keeps him in 3rd and manageable, something even the best QB can't provide HIMSELF (and more than a few have RGIIIed themselves trying.)

[Joel]

A great line is nothing without a good QB. A great QB will make the line better, or hide its deficiencies. Seattle's OL is even worse than ours, but Wilson more than makes up for it.

OL is still extremely important, but QB decides the outcomes of games more than any one position in any sport. Probably even more than a goalie in hockey or pitcher in baseball.
It's still the single most important thing on the field—there's just only ONE QB instead of FIVE linemen, anyone of whom cripples the other four (and the QB, and the RB) if he's not up to the task. Think about what offenses do against a secondary with two elite CBs but one weak rookie: They target that lone weakness and exploit it all day. Defenses do the same against lines with three or four great players but one or two weak ones.

This isn't a sandlot game, or Madden, or fantasy football: All Pro QBs don't carry crappy teams to titles, and elite QBs on crappy teams are far more likely to end up like Archie Manning and Oliver Luck than Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

The Browns had pretty good offensive line last year didn't they? Don't they have an all world center and LT?

[Valar Morghulis]

The Browns had pretty good offensive line last year didn't they? Don't they have an all world center and LT?

They traded their centre to Atlanta I think

[Joel]

They traded their centre to Atlanta I think
They did, and remember the "FIVE linemen, any one of whom cripples the other four (and the QB, and the RB) if he's not up to the task." Just like when a CB gets hurt and replaced by a green backup fresh off the bench the opposing QB doesn't target him only a third of the time, but ALL the time. Water finds its level, and you can usually tell who's the worst guy on even the best offensive lines: That's where the D masses every overload blitz.

The bottom line, if you'll pardon the pun, remains that good running can make up for bad passing and vice versa, so a good RB can compensate for a bad QB and vice versa, but a team with no line can neither run, pass nor even PUNT with any confidence. And it's a lot easier to find a SINGLE guy who excels at HALF of what an offense does than FIVE who excel at ALL an offense does. Especially since bad QB play doesn't physically and emotionally shatter linemen for their whole careers.

[Broncoknight30]

What we may not really know, and it is really impossible to know is just how much a great OL contributes to the success of Dak Prescott. Is he THAT GOOD, or is he really taking advantage of a great running game and the time to pass that the line provides?

Elway did not have his rings until a truly dynamic line was put in front of him. We can say a running game, well that gets that way due to a great OL.

How well did Steve Young do when he was playing for that dumpster fire known as the Bucs organization in the 80s?

Aikman was a pretty average to bad QB in his first few seasons at Dallas, and then they put together perhaps the best OL in history. Turns into a HoFer.

Every time I see Siemian go back to pass, the pocket is collapsing within two seconds. The tackles seem to be using the olay bullfighting technique. They make up for all of that by being pushed backwards and stuffed on just about every running play.

I do happen to think that many organizations go into this death spiral of utter mediocrity (sometimes for decades) cause they waste high first round draft picks on QBs that will automatically command top dollar. There is a distinct possibility that their OL is horrific and maybe even more probable that their defense sucks. So, an organization drafts some top notch QB to "save the franchise."

He will fail inevitably, the coach will get fired, then a new coach comes in. First priority.....get another high priced first round QB to replace the other high priced failure.

In a league with a HARD CAP, having an unproductive high first round (or first rounder at all) sets the franchise back....possibly for a decade.

In a perfect world...(fantasy land maybe) we would love to have the BEST OL, aaaand, the BEST QB, aaaaand the BEST DEFENSE, aaaaand the BEST of EVERYTHING. The facts are that ALL of the players actually playing for the Broncos are not as passionate about the Broncos as us. They are ALL looking for the biggest contracts and they will gladly leave this franchise for another that will pay them. Reference Von Miller. That is just the sobering reality of a league that has this hard cap.

So, again. What are the most important aspects of a franchise to solidify? I think the defense and OL first, before ANYTHING ELSE. Unless you can find a once in a life time QB. Which they even have problems and really have no chance to win it all, until those aspects are adequately addressed. Reference Andrew Luck.

Oh, and it would sure help if a franchise had a Tom Brady. Not just for his ability to play the position, but for the money he DOES NOT COMMAND. Very very very rare.

[spikerman]

The Texans ruined David Carr with their offensive line. He's kind of a punchline now but Carr truly was a first round talent, but he was getting killed to the point he eventually became totally gun shy. An offensive line, if it's good enough, can dominate a game even when a QB is not at his best. Look back to a game that's near and dear to our hearts. In SB 32 the Broncos offensive line KILLED the Packers defense all game long while Elway played one of the worst games of his career from a passing perspective. Give me the o-line first and then go from there.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

They traded their centre to Atlanta I think

Right, but I prior to that they had what many would consider a good foundation and they still stunk as a football team. So, maybe we're not all as smart as we think we are...

[Jsteve01]

I'll take the quarterback. If the quarterback is John Elway or Aaron Rodgers I'll agree with you but the list of can't miss qbs who busted because of horrible protection is long. I was never sold on guys like Akili Smith or Ryan Leaf, but I still believe that David Carr and Tim Couch could have been very good if protected.

[Jsteve01]

And I'm not sure why the Cowboys have to be the team that reminds us every few decades what the value of true dedication to building your offensive front can mean to the rest of the team.

[EastCoastBronco]

Offensive line comes first.
The greatest QB in the world will run out of luck eventually behind a shitty O-Line.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

And I'm not sure why the Cowboys have to be the team that reminds us every few decades what the value of true dedication to building your offensive front can mean to the rest of the team.

It's easy to forget they also had a hof QB, te, rb, and wr. Additionally, they might look good now, but let's not crown them before they've even won a playoff game. Their defense still has issues.

[Hawgdriver]

Every time I see Siemian go back to pass, the pocket is collapsing within two seconds. The tackles seem to be using the olay bullfighting technique. They make up for all of that by being pushed backwards and stuffed on just about every running play.

. . .

Oh, and it would sure help if a franchise had a Tom Brady. Not just for his ability to play the position, but for the money he DOES NOT COMMAND. Very very very rare.

:lol:

Great post!

[Freyaka]

I wonder how many QBs had HoF careers that had those HoF careers due to their great OL. Aikman for example. Now, he was certainly good. No doubt. Of course he had 3 SBs and benefited behind by far the most dominant OL in the league. That OL gave Emmitt Smith great holes (he was a great RB too). Obviously benefited greatly to a passing game that was just efficient.

That is just one example. I know I am not exactly saying something that we don't already know. However it seems to me that many think a "FRANCHISE QB" is so much more important to get, even before establishing a great OL. Which imo is every bit as hard or even more difficult to establish.

Is Prescott really that much better than every rookie, or is he greatly benefiting from a great OL? Not saying he is bad, but I am willing to bet if he was playing behind the OL here, he would be having all kinds of problems.

I have said it before and I will be repeat it....

Great OLs make average QBs good and good QBs great. For all of us contemplating what this franchise needs. IMO, the two places to spend the money on is a the defense and the OL. If those two areas are solid, the franchise will always be very good. Even Tom Brady becomes less than average when that sterilized pocket is pushed back into his face. Watch how he did against the NASCAR DL of the Giants when they wreaked havoc on their OL? When he does not have a clean pocket to step into, he is ordinary.

For giggles I compared the other day multiple great modern QB's. One thing I noticed is that some took a lot of sacks their first season, some did not. I think a great line helps make the transition to starting easier, but Tom Brady as an example had 41 sacks his first season, it didn't hinder him from growing into a franchise QB.

[Poet]

For giggles I compared the other day multiple great modern QB's. One thing I noticed is that some took a lot of sacks their first season, some did not. I think a great line helps make the transition to starting easier, but Tom Brady as an example had 41 sacks his first season, it didn't hinder him from growing into a franchise QB.

You will take sacks by being dumb (really inexperienced but dumb fits better) and being a young person. It's like a metaphor for life, really.

[Broncoknight30]

For giggles I compared the other day multiple great modern QB's. One thing I noticed is that some took a lot of sacks their first season, some did not. I think a great line helps make the transition to starting easier, but Tom Brady as an example had 41 sacks his first season, it didn't hinder him from growing into a franchise QB.

The other aspect I mentioned was defense. The early 2000s Brady was not exactly lighting up statistically. They were more known for their defensive play. Look it up. Brady, in that SB run in 2001 had a grand total ONE td pass.

In fact in his first 4 seasons he never passed for 4000 yards or 30 TD passes in the years they actually won it. In 2004, they had that 1600 yard rusher Dillon.

Anyway, their OL was solid. It certainly was not the porous sack of puss that the Broncos line is now.

On a side note, the Pats really changed their offensive philosophy. Belichick took his whole offensive staff to meet with urban Meyer. Meyer had a particular spread offense that he ran at Utah with Alex Smith that was catching on. Btw, it was also a similar philosophy to the offense ran by Joe Tiller at Purdue with Brees and Orton.

You see any rhyme and reason why McDaniels was somewhat interested in Orton and Tebow?

Anyway, we all saw what a really dynamic defense could do and those Pats teams had that in the early 2000s. They shut down the greatest show on turf.

[BroncoJoe]

You will take sacks by being dumb (really inexperienced but dumb fits better) and being a young person. It's like a metaphor for life, really.

I'd guess you've taken a few sacks in your young life...

:yo:

[Freyaka]

Anyway, their OL was solid. It certainly was not the porous sack of puss that the Broncos line is now.


No, it was pretty much a porous sack...He had the same number of sacks and QB hits that we are facing this year in his early career. The o-line developed later. He started out with as ugly of an o-line as we had, he just had a great defense that masked his inadequacies.

[Poet]

I'd guess you've taken a few sacks in your young life...

:yo:

Yes.

[NightTerror218]

For giggles I compared the other day multiple great modern QB's. One thing I noticed is that some took a lot of sacks their first season, some did not. I think a great line helps make the transition to starting easier, but Tom Brady as an example had 41 sacks his first season, it didn't hinder him from growing into a franchise QB.

So.e QB can bounce back other just spiral downhill with confidence and bad habits of forcing ball, gun shy ect.

But poor decisions and holding onto ball too long are prob 80% of the sacks.

[BroncoJoe]

So.e QB can bounce back other just spiral downhill with confidence and bad habits of forcing ball, gun shy ect.

But poor decisions and holding onto ball too long are prob 80% of the sacks.

No.

[Freyaka]

So.e QB can bounce back other just spiral downhill with confidence and bad habits of forcing ball, gun shy ect.

But poor decisions and holding onto ball too long are prob 80% of the sacks.

First year QB's tend to hold it too long because that don't have that quick decision making process down. That normally comes in year two or three of starting.

[Hawgdriver]

So.e QB can bounce back other just spiral downhill with confidence and bad habits of forcing ball, gun shy ect.

But poor decisions and holding onto ball too long are prob 80% of the sacks.

80% is too high. In Manning's 2013 year (Clark, Beadles, ManRam, Vasquez, Franklin), he had a 2.7% sack rate. TS has 6.9%. Ignoring differences in the offensive line (you have to attribute several to the RT position), that gives you 4.2% that TS takes that are QB-fault, so 60%. If you say 6 sacks are due to RT alone, the attribution to TS becomes about 55%.

Still high, but 80% is off the mark.

[Broncoknight30]

80% is too high. In Manning's 2013 year (Clark, Beadles, ManRam, Vasquez, Franklin), he had a 2.7% sack rate. TS has 6.9%. Ignoring differences in the offensive line (you have to attribute several to the RT position), that gives you 4.2% that TS takes that are QB-fault, so 60%. If you say 6 sacks are due to RT alone, the attribution to TS becomes about 55%.

Still high, but 80% is off the mark.

Not to mention the running game or total lack there of.

[Hawgdriver]

Not to mention the running game or total lack there of.

Bronco's season average 3.6 YPC is 28th of 32. Not first-year starter friendly. That's probably the best data point in defense of Trevor Siemian, although it could be interpreted as teams not fearing the passing game.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Bronco's season average 3.6 YPC is 28th of 32. Not first-year starter friendly. That's probably the best data point in defense of Trevor Siemian, although it could be interpreted as teams not fearing the passing game.

I thought teams played the run when CJ was in the game.

[Hawgdriver]

I thought teams played the run when CJ was in the game.

Booker hasn't come close to filling his shoes.

[MOtorboat]

80% is too high. In Manning's 2013 year (Clark, Beadles, ManRam, Vasquez, Franklin), he had a 2.7% sack rate. TS has 6.9%. Ignoring differences in the offensive line (you have to attribute several to the RT position), that gives you 4.2% that TS takes that are QB-fault, so 60%. If you say 6 sacks are due to RT alone, the attribution to TS becomes about 55%.

Still high, but 80% is off the mark.

This is assuming Manning never took a sack of his own fault.

[Hawgdriver]

This is assuming Manning never took a sack of his own fault.

Correct.

[Jsteve01]

It's easy to forget they also had a hof QB, te, rb, and wr. Additionally, they might look good now, but let's not crown them before they've even won a playoff game. Their defense still has issues.

I'm not crowning anyone but they have the best record in football and that with a rookie at rb and qb. Sure zeke is great and dak is solid but you can put that right on the backs of the best line in the game. Look at the Raiders. Same story. Mckenzie has built that into a top 5 o line. Same for the Titans. If the Titans had any kind of defensive backfield they would be scary.

[NightTerror218]

80% is too high. In Manning's 2013 year (Clark, Beadles, ManRam, Vasquez, Franklin), he had a 2.7% sack rate. TS has 6.9%. Ignoring differences in the offensive line (you have to attribute several to the RT position), that gives you 4.2% that TS takes that are QB-fault, so 60%. If you say 6 sacks are due to RT alone, the attribution to TS becomes about 55%.

Still high, but 80% is off the mark.

Thanks for the math aspect.

I am looking at the stats of the 12 starting QBs. Some of them had good lines and still took a lot of sacks. But 60% i can live with

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

I'm not crowning anyone but they have the best record in football and that with a rookie at rb and qb. Sure zeke is great and dak is solid but you can put that right on the backs of the best line in the game. Look at the Raiders. Same story. Mckenzie has built that into a top 5 o line. Same for the Titans. If the Titans had any kind of defensive backfield they would be scary.

Agreed, I'm just saying stopping people is important in the playoffs and I think Dallas gets beat at home in the playoffs

[Valar Morghulis]

Agreed, I'm just saying stopping people is important in the playoffs and I think Dallas gets beat at home in the playoffs

Me too

[Jsteve01]

Agreed, I'm just saying stopping people is important in the playoffs and I think Dallas gets beat at home in the playoffs

That defense has tightened up a little They're middle of the pack overall but number one in the league in rush defense. Perhaps that's because no one bothers to try to run on them when they can just air it out, but If you can run the ball and stop the run, that's a pretty decent formula for playoff success.