Thread: Superbowl Also Proves That Our Oline...

"nikoli" wrote:

is a lot better than a lot of you gave them credit for. The same Patriot Oline that so many of your were pimping got ravaged by the same Dline that our Oline stoned for four quarters. That's right, our Oline manhandled the NYG Dline. The only time the NYG DL got after Tarvaris was when Tarvaris held the ball too long. Otherwise our OL did a stellar job against an extremely talented DL.

Now I'm sure the excuses will come flying out of the woodwork here. But the bottom line is that our OL didn't look that bad all season. Is our OL the best? Nope, but it's pretty darn good and it's time all the haters give credit where credit is due.

I would also agree with the post below that DE is our biggest need. Get Suggs in here and get him here NOW!!!

Our offensive line is one of the best in the NFL. They are the best in the running game, that is why the players we have were brought in. Hutch is a top run blocker, Richardson is a top run blocking fb, the TE's all excel at run blocking. Pass blocking has not been as good, but I don't think a major weakness on the team.

Saying we had great protection for one game does not impress me much. By that logic the Vikings were the best team in the NFL because they beat the giants. Unfortunetly 5 other teams also beat the Giants. Any team can beat any team in the nfl. The vikings were beat 8 times this year, in some of those the QB did not have much time, even though the D-line was not as good.

"jmcdon00" wrote:

"nikoli" wrote:

is a lot better than a lot of you gave them credit for. The same Patriot Oline that so many of your were pimping got ravaged by the same Dline that our Oline stoned for four quarters. That's right, our Oline manhandled the NYG Dline. The only time the NYG DL got after Tarvaris was when Tarvaris held the ball too long. Otherwise our OL did a stellar job against an extremely talented DL.

Now I'm sure the excuses will come flying out of the woodwork here. But the bottom line is that our OL didn't look that bad all season. Is our OL the best? Nope, but it's pretty darn good and it's time all the haters give credit where credit is due.

I would also agree with the post below that DE is our biggest need. Get Suggs in here and get him here NOW!!!

Our offensive line is one of the best in the NFL. They are the best in the running game, that is why the players we have were brought in. Hutch is a top run blocker, Richardson is a top run blocking fb, the TE's all excel at run blocking. Pass blocking has not been as good, but I don't think a major weakness on the team.

Saying we had great protection for one game does not impress me much. By that logic the Vikings were the best team in the NFL because they beat the giants. Unfortunetly 5 other teams also beat the Giants. Any team can beat any team in the nfl. The vikings were beat 8 times this year, in some of those the QB did not have much time, even though the D-line was not as good.

We had great protection for more than one game. The point is that we stoned the best pass rush for 4 quarters. That's impressive any way you slice it.

"nikoli" wrote:

We had great protection for more than one game. The point is that we stoned the best pass rush for 4 quarters. That's impressive any way you slice it.

Is that why we are ranked 20th with 38 Sacks allowed?
Oh wait, I think you say that is all the QB's fault.

http://www.fantasytailgate.com/O-LINE.html

I think were alot of confusion comes from (as I've said repeatedly) is that alot of pages (see link) give huge props to run blocking but fail to accurately reflect pass blocking problems.

http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/JasonWinter/130337

The Vikings rank 6th on the list, thanks in large part to their league-leading 5.33 yards per carry, which netted them 50 points. They were 7th worst in pass protection, though, giving up a sack on 8.09% of their QB's dropbacks. This difference, though, is the perfect platform for pointing out another of the system's possible flaws.

Do we have talent on the OL?
Sure.
Do they do a good job executing the Zone Blocking Scheme? Sure.
Do they need help in the Man-to-man Pass Blocking?
Sure.

Will they get better?
Sure.


a.
Cook, Herrara seem to work well together.

b.
Cook will be better next year. Hell he did OK this year after being thrown to the wolves.
c.
Birk will have a better understanding of shift line calls during audibles and pre-snap adjustments.
d.
TJ will be better at reading Blitz packages, getting through his reads faster and getting rid of the ball faster.
e.
AD will be better at picking up the blitz and will be able to stay out for more pass plays which kindof telegraphed the play calling this year.

Long story short, they are a work in progress that has shown some flashes of what can be and of course some bad as well but to think that they are better than a work in progress just because a team we beat won the SB is kindof a reach my friend.

Again, I gotta give ya props for standing by your points though.

;D

By watching the 2 teams in the Super Bowl play means nothing.
Every team is different.
Different players coaches, schemes, play, etc.


So, I have no idea what good it does to compare those 2 teams O Lines to ours does.

"ultravikingfan" wrote:

By watching the 2 teams in the Super Bowl play means nothing.
Every team is different.
Different players coaches, schemes, play, etc.


So, I have no idea what good it does to compare those 2 teams O Lines to ours does.

Hey, how about giving the guy props for atleast defending his one stance he has had so far.


(JK
;D) not sure what gets into me sometimes.

From your link. Can't say I'm completely surprised that you left it out.

I don't know why anyone would suggest the only good game the OL had in pass protection was at NYG.

That said, the team's lousy showing in pass protection can squarely be laid at the stone feet of Kelly Holcomb, who went down 12.6% of the time. The seemingly more-mobile Brooks Bollinger, in 57 dropbacks, was sacked 50 times (12.3%) while Tarvaris Jackson only took a sack 6.1% of the time (though Vikings fans wish he would have taken a few more). It's certain that the play of the team's immobile quarterbacks played a big part in the O-line's poor showing here and therefore deserves some of the blame.

And that's where a lot of people get hung up. A QB sack is almost invariably laid at the feet of the offensive line, while big rushing yards are almost invariably credited to the running back. In a single game, the differences might be noted, but when a team gives up 50 sacks on a season, people blame the line, while if a running back averages 5.5 yards per carry, people lavish credit on the player.

In truth, the quarterback is partially to blame for the sacks and the line deserves credit for the running attack

"ultravikingfan" wrote:

By watching the 2 teams in the Super Bowl play means nothing.
Every team is different.
Different players coaches, schemes, play, etc.


So, I have no idea what good it does to compare those 2 teams O Lines to ours does.

Are you just being difficult for the sake of being difficult? I know it's offseason and all but the point is pretty obvious. Our Oline played the Giants Dline exceptionally well. Just giving credit where credit is due. Seems like a lot of folks here think the Oline is a problem area. This just further proves that it's not nearly as doomy and gloomy as those folks suggest.

"nikoli" wrote:

From your link. Can't say I'm completely surprised that you left it out.

I don't know why anyone would suggest the only good game the OL had in pass protection was at NYG.

That said, the team's lousy showing in pass protection can squarely be laid at the stone feet of Kelly Holcomb, who went down 12.6% of the time. The seemingly more-mobile Brooks Bollinger, in 57 dropbacks, was sacked 50 times (12.3%) while Tarvaris Jackson only took a sack 6.1% of the time (though Vikings fans wish he would have taken a few more). It's certain that the play of the team's immobile quarterbacks played a big part in the O-line's poor showing here and therefore deserves some of the blame.

And that's where a lot of people get hung up. A QB sack is almost invariably laid at the feet of the offensive line, while big rushing yards are almost invariably credited to the running back. In a single game, the differences might be noted, but when a team gives up 50 sacks on a season, people blame the line, while if a running back averages 5.5 yards per carry, people lavish credit on the player.

In truth, the quarterback is partially to blame for the sacks and the line deserves credit for the running attack

We try not to quote the whole thread on here.


If I wanted to decieve I wouldn't have given you the link in my post.

"nikoli" wrote:

"ultravikingfan" wrote:

By watching the 2 teams in the Super Bowl play means nothing.
Every team is different.
Different players coaches, schemes, play, etc.


So, I have no idea what good it does to compare those 2 teams O Lines to ours does.

Are you just being difficult for the sake of being difficult? I know it's offseason and all but the point is pretty obvious. Our Oline played the Giants Dline exceptionally well. Just giving credit where credit is due. Seems like a lot of folks here think the Oline is a problem area. This just further proves that it's not nearly as doomy and gloomy as those folks suggest.

You ever feel like you are fighting a loosing battle.
;D

No one is saying the line sucks.
We are just saying that we have problems in the passing area and it is crazy to try to base your argument on a game that has nothing to do with the lines play during the whole season.

"nikoli" wrote:

From your link. Can't say I'm completely surprised that you left it out.

I don't know why anyone would suggest the only good game the OL had in pass protection was at NYG.

That said, the team's lousy showing in pass protection can squarely be laid at the stone feet of Kelly Holcomb, who went down 12.6% of the time. The seemingly more-mobile Brooks Bollinger, in 57 dropbacks, was sacked 50 times (12.3%) while Tarvaris Jackson only took a sack 6.1% of the time (though Vikings fans wish he would have taken a few more). It's certain that the play of the team's immobile quarterbacks played a big part in the O-line's poor showing here and therefore deserves some of the blame.

And that's where a lot of people get hung up. A QB sack is almost invariably laid at the feet of the offensive line, while big rushing yards are almost invariably credited to the running back. In a single game, the differences might be noted, but when a team gives up 50 sacks on a season, people blame the line, while if a running back averages 5.5 yards per carry, people lavish credit on the player.

In truth, the quarterback is partially to blame for the sacks and the line deserves credit for the running attack

That's a lot.