Mularkey takes speed over blocking..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Tatonka
    Registered User
    • Jul 2002
    • 21289

    Mularkey takes speed over blocking..



    good read.
    "All hockey players are bilingual. They know English and profanity." ~ Gordie Howe
  • The Spaz
    Registered User
    • Mar 2003
    • 19066

    #2
    What we should be thinking about is how best to take advantage of a highly mobile quarterback whose legs are his best protection against the pass rush, not lumbering sides of beef with feet.
    I love it!

    Comment

    • Mr. Cynical
      Maybe?
      • Oct 2003
      • 9766

      #3
      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."
      I 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

      • Sportsuser101
        Registered User
        • Feb 2005
        • 2705

        #4
        Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
        I 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.
        QBs 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.
        Dareus - 1st Round Pick

        Comment

        • The Spaz
          Registered User
          • Mar 2003
          • 19066

          #5
          Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
          I 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.
          Our line is at least adequate if not good with another year of McNally at the helm.

          Comment

          • RedEyE
            Registered User
            • Jul 2002
            • 24661

            #6
            "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

            • Mr. Cynical
              Maybe?
              • Oct 2003
              • 9766

              #7
              Originally posted by Sportsuser101
              QBs 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.
              You 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.

              Comment

              • ddaryl
                Everything I post is sexual inuendo
                • Jan 2005
                • 10714

                #8
                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

                • mysticsoto
                  Too sober for this...
                  • Apr 2004
                  • 31439

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
                  You 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.
                  I'm not sure if NE's O-line is better than ours or not. I do know this, Brady does make it better. In the draft, they even showed some clips on how Brady's slight mobility and pocket presence helped make his line better. Just the occasional stepping up when he needed to, or taking a slight side step - seems so little, and yet it was crucial to the O-line blocker such that Brady could eventually get his throw out.

                  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

                  • Tatonka
                    Registered User
                    • Jul 2002
                    • 21289

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
                    I 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.

                    .
                    atlanta.

                    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

                    • jamze132
                      Don’t hate…
                      • Jun 2003
                      • 29423

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Tatonka
                      atlanta.

                      good run blockers.. which we are.. average to below average pass blockers..
                      You beat me to it. I was gong to say Atlanta as well, even though they didn't get to the Superbowl.

                      Comment

                      • Mr. Cynical
                        Maybe?
                        • Oct 2003
                        • 9766

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Tatonka
                        atlanta.

                        good run blockers.. which we are.. average to below average pass blockers..
                        Originally posted by jamze132
                        You beat me to it. I was gong to say Atlanta as well, even though they didn't get to the Superbowl.
                        That was my point...I said SB winners.

                        Comment

                        • The Spaz
                          Registered User
                          • Mar 2003
                          • 19066

                          #13
                          Originally posted by jamze132
                          You beat me to it. I was gong to say Atlanta as well, even though they didn't get to the Superbowl.
                          I 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

                          • The_Philster
                            Registered User
                            • Jul 2002
                            • 52180

                            #14
                            Originally posted by jamze132
                            You 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 Spaz
                            I think the Falcons went to the Superbowl with a similiar offense against the Broncos, they were built on speed receivers and a good RB.
                            The official source for NFL news, video highlights, fantasy football, game-day coverage, schedules, stats, scores and more.
                            The Buffalo Pro Cheer Blog...Positive coverage of Buffalo's Pro Cheerleaders since 2001!

                            Comment

                            • Mr. Cynical
                              Maybe?
                              • Oct 2003
                              • 9766

                              #15
                              Originally posted by The Spaz
                              I think the Falcons went to the Superbowl with a similiar offense against the Broncos, they were built on speed receivers and a good RB.
                              It also helps to be in a dome with that style.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X