Thread: Offensive line struggles have NFL quarterbacks dropping like flies

You've heard it before: teams are built through the trenches, the offensive and defensive lines. But through two weeks of the 2015 season it's clear defenses have been winning that battle convincingly and with dire consequences.

Tony Romo. Drew Brees. Jay Cutler. Derek Carr. Josh McCown. That's the list of starting quarterbacks across the league who have already missed time due to injuries this season.

It's an alarming rate for a few of the NFL's golden boys. But it's a start of a new era. Defenses have adapted, caught up and finally surpassed offenses for the most part.

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/knowthis/c...ing-like-flies

Defenses have adapted, caught up and finally surpassed offenses for the most part.

Probably the most important part of the article. Our O-Line isn't great, but defenses have adapted to today's NFL, and make them look worse than they are.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

Defenses have adapted, caught up and finally surpassed offenses for the most part.

Probably the most important part of the article. Our O-Line isn't great, but defenses have adapted to today's NFL, and make them look worse than they are.

Still unconvinced. Luck's not hurt, just has twice as many TOs as TDs, and Rodgers, Rivers and even DALTON are doing fine with solid lines and fine run support. Even with the 3-4s multiple blitzing angles and extra LB to blanket short routes, there's more to defense than sacks and Ints. But defenses will only appreciate that when offenses forcefully remind them by in turn realizing 3rd and 3 shouldn't be an AUTOMATIC passing down when the NFL rushing average has been 4.2 yds for decades.

Since offenses pass more than ever, defenses responded with more speed at sizes expense, trading a DT for a LB and LBs for DBs. A 3-4 renaissance has marginalized the once-dominant 4-3, and nickel's functionally the base for more and more teams. We are typical: If memory serves, Anunike added 15 lbs. this offseason, yet remains smaller than a prototypical 3-4 DE; all our backup ILBs are smaller than some safeties. That comes at a price in both endurance and inertia, one guys like Campbell, Riggins and Dickerson exacted till the 3-4 popularized to beat the AFLs bombers gave way to a resurgent 4-3.

Despite passings steady advance, football's always had an ebb and flow, and largely losing it the last few years only makes its eventual return more likely and imminent. To the (great) extent football's a war simulator, air power's more explosive than boots on the ground, but both are indispensable to victory: Claire Chennault couldn't bomb the VC back into the Stone Age, and Peyton Manning can't do it to NE.

Maybe it's selection bias, but I've heard more than usual about "balance" the last few years. That discussion seemed to ramp up about the time our pass-only 2013 offense shattered a slew of NFL records only to GET shattered in SB XLVIII. By the middle of last year our coaches even publicly admitted we must run well enough to take some offensive pressure off even the best passing in NFL history. "Run to establish the pass" as commentators said in my childhood, or "run 'em out of Cover 2" as the saying is now; same thing.

That applies as much to eras as to individual games: Every time offenses unevenly swing one way, defenses sooner or later swing the same way to compensate. That shuts down what was formerly wide open, but at the expense of recreating offensive opportunities in what was formerly shutdown. Adapt, rinse, repeat. The rule changes may continue to increasingly favor passing for the sake of ratings, but in that respect defenses have largely "caught up" by finding loopholes; Seattles is (or was) among the best rules lawyers, and thus best defenses. But the pendulum keeps swinging, as it will as long as football lasts....

Gosh I hope this trend doesn't continue on to the Patriots.

Originally Posted by chazoe60

Gosh I hope this trend doesn't continue on to the Patriots.

You should change your screen name to Philanthropist.

It is hard for my football season to suck worse. After what the Saints have shown so far they will be lucky to win 4 games. My Cavaliers got walloped by Boise 56-14 and are 1-3 with the one win a squeaked out affair vs William and Mary.

Originally Posted by Ottokar Prohaska

It is hard for my football season to suck worse. After what the Saints have shown so far they will be lucky to win 4 games. My Cavaliers got walloped by Boise 56-14 and are 1-3 with the one win a squeaked out affair vs William and Mary.

Gah!! I forgot the game was tonight! How did the Rypien kid look?

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

Probably the most important part of the article. Our O-Line isn't great, but defenses have adapted to today's NFL, and make them look worse than they are.

Doubt it.

The NFL Champion threw 50 times and abandoned the run in the Super Bowl last year. Why? Way the hell more effective. The team that beat Denver threw it 43 times, 14 more times than running it in that game. "Balance" is the outdated philosophy. Get the first down by the means necessary to get it. More times than not, that's through the air.

It's a passing league because passing is wildly more efficient: it gains more yards and it scores more points (the "laughable" goal of every team to suit up from pee-wee to pro).

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

Doubt it.

The NFL Champion threw 50 times and abandoned the run in the Super Bowl last year. Why? Way the hell more effective. The team that beat Denver threw it 43 times, 14 more times than running it in that game. "Balance" is the outdated philosophy. Get the first down by the means necessary to get it. More times than not, that's through the air.

It's a passing league because passing is wildly more efficient: it gains more yards and it scores more points (the "laughable" goal of every team to suit up from pee-wee to pro).

It also causes (at least) 5X more turnovers. Get the first down by the means necessary is a great philosophy: Doesn't 4.2 yds/att (the perennial NFL rushing average for DECADES) do that? Every team that keeps getting first downs by any means necessary eventually finds itself in the end zone every time, but it takes a lot longer on the ground, which rests their D, tires their opponents, and keeps their opponents mad bombers impotently on the bench--ESPECIALLY since it coughs up the ball FIVE TIMES LESS OFTEN.

It's not a panacea, because NOTHING IS, and that's the real point. The team that won the SB with 50 passes was about to LOSE it--until the team that had thrown 42 times threw a 43rd into the end zone: To the WRONG TEAM, instead of riding their Beastquake for ONE measly yard and a repeat championship. That team didn't win their first championship throwing 43 times/game, but by beating the snot out of the team that DID do that, shattering SEASON records but getting BLOWN OUT OF THE CHAMPIONSHIP from kickoff to gun.

Now, if a team's down multiple scores in the final minutes, "taking a lot longer on the ground" goes from benefit to detriment: Opposing gun slingers can remain comfortably seated and WINNING on their bench, because there's not enough time to tire and then exploit their D. In those situations, the ONLY way to stay in the game, predictable though it is, is worth much higher turnover risks. Same if nursing a narrow LEAD in the final minutes and unable to punch through with runs opponents expect; unless running burns their last time out and takes the clock to <1:00, pass for first downs when needed.

There are all kinds of tactical exceptions, too, my favorite being scoring strikes on 2nd and 2, when there's still (at least) another down to convert with even a below average run. That's about balance, flexibility and unpredictability; if the other side knows a team can't or simply won't run, they won't be able to pass well either, because that'll be the Ds whole focus. And let's drop all this talk of "ball control" short passing attempting the short runs job for equal gains with several times the risk; all that does is stack the box until running's impossible, while negating a key asset of passing: Big gains.

The big thing is that, as noted elsewhere, NFL rules give offense tons of advantages, but most of the biggest are due to defenses never knowing what offenses will do or when: So taking that away (or simply FORFEITING it) takes away most of offenses advantage. Doesn't matter if an offenses fixates on the run OR pass; the problem's not the "run" nor "pass" part, but the "fixates" part. All else being equal, Social Security's a more reliable retirement investment than stocks, but stocks pay far better: The most productive approach is a healthy amount of BOTH.

If I had to boil it down to a tweet (and I know how folks love that) I'd say: A team should GENERALLY run when it can and pass when it must, but the only thing it should ALWAYS do is WHATEVER the D doesn't expect. No, this is not an argument for punting on 3rd and 20 (as such.... ) Play action's great, but only works with a credible run threat, and draw's are pretty great, too, but only work with a credible passing threat. Otherwise, the D just ignores a fake that's toothless even if legit, and focuses on stopping the ONLY thing that offense EVER does.

There's a reason players, coaches and announcers talk about "having the whole playbook." It's a GOOD thing, honest, and one of the nicest things about a conversion. Always running on 1st down was stupid, but now that just about EVERYONE just about ALWAYS passes on 1st down, that's every bit as stupid, and for the same reason.

I don't hate passing, I love it: But I know the risks (precisely) and want them to count for something; 2nd and 5 instead of 2nd and 7 isn't "something," it's a standard deviation. Even with the BEST WCO short passes, a third go into the dirt or an opponents hands (with most of the offense behind them and little in front but the end zone,) but far less than a third of runs are dropped for no gain or a loss. And when runs DO get hit for a loss, it's rarely 7-10 yards, which is pretty common for sacks (which aren't counted as "attempts" even though they are: Completion percentages aren't as high in fact as on paper.)

The big thing though is turnovers: There's no getting around the FACT that even a Manning or Brady's intercepted about 1/40 throws, and strip-sacked on about as many, while losing the ball once in even 100 runs is enough to get a RB labeled "fumble prone." Passers with 6 Ints and 3 fumbles lost go to the Pro Bowl; runners with HALF as many turnovers go on waiver. Justifying that takes a LOT more than an a couple extra yards, and that's what we're talking: In 2014, the average run got 4.2 yds (same as always) while the average pass ATTEMPT (NOT completion) got 6.4.

Read it, don't read it; what no one can do is CHANGE it, because it's proven and documented physical FACT. Disputing it's like disputing that the earth revolves around the sun.