Mularkey takes speed over blocking..
Collapse
X
-
Worrying about blocking is so passe when you've got a quarterback like Losman who can run like a deer and can throw like a cannon.
"If we can keep our defense off the field because we're better at controlling the football, or better on third down, because we've gotten guys who are playmakers on third down, then our defense automatically is better."
The rules may change...the players may evolve...but the fundamentals stay the same.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Mr. CynicalI completely 100% disagree. You can't control the football without a line that can block. Show me an example of a team that went all the way by having a mobile QB with a line that can't block very well.
The rules may change...the players may evolve...but the fundamentals stay the same.Dareus - 1st Round Pick
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Mr. CynicalI completely 100% disagree. You can't control the football without a line that can block. Show me an example of a team that went all the way by having a mobile QB with a line that can't block very well.
The rules may change...the players may evolve...but the fundamentals stay the same.
Comment
-
-
"Yeah, teams have to block. But those blocks don't have to be sustained that long when a quarterback can move, roll out, dump the ball into the hands of receivers who've gained separation from defenders because of their quickness short or deep.
Buffalo is starting to stockpile these kinds of people with Parrish and Everett now joining Eric Moulds, Lee Evans and running back Willis McGahee.
"We just felt that we're trying to get better on offense and one of the ways you do that with is with playmakers," general manager Tom Donahoe said.
Handing Mularkey two more offensive lollipops was a sure signal he's ready to flex his muscles sans Bledsoe. Without being mean-spirited, Mularkey said he was limited in what he could do with Drew. His play calling under the versatile Losman will be like opening up War and Peace after a year with Cat in the Hat. "
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Sportsuser101QBs and RBs make lines better at times. See Tom Brady. There line isn't that good but Brady has the ability to step up with an outside blitz. I don't think we need a dominating offensive line and I agree I'd rather have more playmakers then just take an offensive lineman just because you need 1 even if the playmaker is the better play.
Every dominating team that has gone on to win the SB has had a very good oline. Redskins, Cowboys, Broncos, 9ers, Rams...the only team I can think of in recent memeory that won without a really good oline was the Ravens, but their D was so overpowering it didn't matter. But that is the exception to the rule. Maybe you can say the Bucs too, but Oakland imploded so it is hard to say.
IMO we had enough playmakers with WM, LE, JP and Moulds. We have our "triplets". But without proper protection, it's not going to matter how fast Parrish is. (P.S. I still think the odds are against him succeeding given his size but we'll see when the season comes) And the reverse to what you said is also true - a great oline can make playmakers out of good players as well.
Comment
-
-
I still don't see much of a problem with our OL. We are definitly better off then last year.
We're the same or better at LG, C, RG and RT. Without a doubt the LG position will be better this year with Anderson, Gandy and Geisenger on board.
LT can and will be filled by Teague, Peters, McFarland, Desmudsen, or Gandy. All have either experience at LT a year with McNally, or both. Teague is the 1st choice since he has experience, but I wouldn't be surprised to see one of our younger projects step up as the season moves on.
Jennings was a 3rd rd pick we groomed to be LT. I don't see us having as much of a problem as people think filling the LT spot.
Our depth this year is definitely better and deeper then last year as well.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Mr. CynicalYou may say that NE's line isn't "that good", but it is still much better than ours. Even though Brady has had to step up at times, in general he normally has alot of time to throw.
Every dominating team that has gone on to win the SB has had a very good oline. Redskins, Cowboys, Broncos, 9ers, Rams...the only team I can think of in recent memeory that won without a really good oline was the Ravens, but their D was so overpowering it didn't matter. But that is the exception to the rule. Maybe you can say the Bucs too, but Oakland imploded so it is hard to say.
IMO we had enough playmakers with WM, LE, JP and Moulds. We have our "triplets". But without proper protection, it's not going to matter how fast Parrish is. (P.S. I still think the odds are against him succeeding given his size but we'll see when the season comes) And the reverse to what you said is also true - a great oline can make playmakers out of good players as well.
These things JP will be able to give us better than Bledsoe. I still don't know how his pocket presence will be as compared to some of the best out there, but I seriously doubt that it'll be as bad as Bledsoe. We did cut the # of sacks dramatically last year for a non-moving QB. Let's see how much lower they go for a moving QB...
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Mr. CynicalI completely 100% disagree. You can't control the football without a line that can block. Show me an example of a team that went all the way by having a mobile QB with a line that can't block very well.
.
good run blockers.. which we are.. average to below average pass blockers.."All hockey players are bilingual. They know English and profanity." ~ Gordie Howe
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by jamze132You beat me to it. I was gong to say Atlanta as well, even though they didn't get to the Superbowl.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by jamze132You beat me to it. I was gong to say Atlanta as well, even though they didn't get to the Superbowl.Originally posted by The SpazI think the Falcons went to the Superbowl with a similiar offense against the Broncos, they were built on speed receivers and a good RB.
Comment
-
Comment