brasilrams wrote: ↑
Fri May 22, 2020 12:52 pm
zackn wrote: ↑
Fri May 22, 2020 6:50 am
Not sure what do you want here . We will keep going in circles . You ask us to provide examples of QBs that played well behind bad o lines . We provide
No I didn't.
I am asking now 2 things.
First, read what I actually say.
Second, here's what I am actually saying---when OLs get massively injured and regress as a result, they take the qb down with them.
It's not this subjective thing about "bad OLs." That's you guys inventing criteria I am not using. Plus it depends on the subjective judgment as to what is a "bad" OL. That's why that's never what I said.
I was very specific to the Rams situation in 2019. (And 2007 for that matter since this is not the first time).
Name me examples of qbs whose OLs were severely compromised due to injury and the qb continued to play well.
None of your examples fit that. Except Wilson in 2017 and I long since mentioned him myself.
Now if I have to explain why a massively injured OL makes a difference, I will, but I think you guys should already know all that if your going to act like you actually know football. Excuse me for being blunt about that, but---geez, c'mon. For example, a thought experiment. Tell me the 2000 Rams do as well if they lose Pace, McCollum, and Timmerman for the season. According to you that would have no effect whatsoever? Right.
A bad o line is a bad o line.
And you are missing the entire point if not deliberately trying to dodge it.
The case we have is someone who played well when the OL was solid (although not great). Then it fell apart in 2019 when both OTs started the season shaky and then they had multiple injury replacements.
The issue then is someone who plays well with a relatively healthy line who then has to play behind an injury depleted line.
You guys are finding every way possible to avoid directly addressing that.
And I said if you don't get why extensive OL injuries make a difference I would explain it. Guess I have to do that. Though I think of it as football 101 basics.
First, OL rankings are subjective. Unless you just take PFF as gospel and don't think about it any deeper. A relatively healthy OL, even one that is not considered very good, at least has continuity plus the coaches know it and what it can do, as does the qb. That's why Warner could play well in ARZ behind an OL that was not considered stellar. They just combined his ability to read quickly pre-snap and get the ball out with their ability to play effectively in a short quick passing game. If a line can communicate and if the offensive coaches know their strengths and weaknesses they can at least plan on doing things that can work.
When an OL gets massively injured--beyond just a guy or 2 missing time--you lose continuity, you lose rhythm (an OL unit has to play together it's not just 5 individuals), and the qb loses confidence in it which leads to pressing on his part just to make plays. The playcalling is different because you can't use the entire arsenal (McVay directly said as much last year when asked if OL injuries changed his playcalling). The communication is not there, the familiarity is not there, the trust is not there, the timing is not there---it's just not an integrated unit.
Last year is a good example. Once they had 3 inexperience injury replacements in place, they did not start out that great--they stumbled against Baltimore and struggled against the Bears, and then did okay against teams that could not bring pressure (Arizona and Seattle), regressed against Dallas, but then improved against SF. It took them a while to get up to the point where they were cohesive enough to play a team like SF tought but at least they got there. Stats back this.
On top of it what you really listed was guys you THOUGHT would play well behind an injured OL. You still don't have examples of qbs actually playing as well behind extensively injured OLs. You just tried to change the topic.
And no in terms of trying to change the subject, a "bad OL" is not the same as an injury depleted one--including the fact that "bad" is just a subjective value judgment. I can say that an OL is probably one of the 10 best, or the middle of the pack, or not that effective (bottom 12) but I would never pretend it's possible for anyone to legitimately just rank them in some strict 1 through 32 order.
And there are good teams with average at best OLs. That's been true all along, it's something we all know.
But you add extensive injuries to that unit and you mess with continuity, cohesion, communication, trust, playcalling, timing, and efficiency. That's even with good OLs, which can be brought down by extensive injuries. AND when that happens qb play suffers. I named a couple of exceptions (Brady and Wilson) but as I said they couldn't sustain it, it caught up with them too.