Does anyone think our offensive line is good enough for the playoffs?

[Rockport]

Lol. The results must be hard for you to reconcile, huh?

People have done a really nice job on this board building the case for an improved pass defense and takeaways. They've seen the team play well on offense with weaker starters. They've watched OL play in preseason. There's really no reason to use personnel as an excuse now.

All that said, the poll will probably even out over the course of the day.

No, the results aren't hard for me to reconcile. For example you're one of those who pretend our offensive line is fine. I've read enough posts to know that ESPN rules the thought process for many posters. They also like the flash and marketability of the skill players. Talking offensive lineman doesn't sell commercial's nor does it sells jerseys. So no, it's not hard at all to reconcile.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

The poll is too limiting in the options to vote. If the Cowboys somehow make it to a Super Bowl it will be despite the o-line and d-line not because of them. The o-line is paper thin. It might be ok the first few games but it will take a miracle for all of them to stay healthy the whole season.

 

[Idgit]

No, the results aren't hard for me to reconcile. For example you're one of those who pretend our offensive line is fine. I've read enough posts to know that ESPN rules the thought process for many posters. They also like the flash and marketability of the skill players. Talking offensive lineman doesn't sell commercial's nor does it sells jerseys. So no, it's not hard at all to reconcile.

Lol, you may read the posts, but I wouldn't vouch for your comprehension. The argument I usually make is that a team can win with mediocre OL play, especially at the OG position. That's not the same thing as being 'fine.'

Sure, I'd love to see it better, but not at the expense of the positions on the team that actually cause a team to lose. We have an effective passing offense. We don't have, or haven't had, an effective passing defense. It's a no-brainer. It's got very little to do with the skill players.

 

[Rockport]

Lol, you may read the posts, but I wouldn't vouch for your comprehension. The argument I usually make is that a team can win with mediocre OL play, especially at the OG position. That's not the same thing as being 'fine.'

Sure, I'd love to see it better, but not at the expense of the positions on the team that actually cause a team to lose. We have an effective passing offense. We don't have, or haven't had, an effective passing defense. It's a no-brainer. It's got very little to do with the skill players.

Well, your argument has produced 6-10, 8-8 and 8-8 the last 3 years. Nuff said.

 

[Vintage]

Well, your argument has produced 6-10, 8-8 and 8-8 the last 3 years. Nuff said.

So... by such a simplistic measure of that... I assume we can look at Tennessee's record at the end of the year and see what happens when you build around OGs to "win in the trenches."

 

[Rockport]

So... by such a simplistic measure of that... I assume we can look at Tennessee's record at the end of the year and see what happens when you build around OGs to "win in the trenches."

I don't know anything about Tennessee and how they're building their team now or have in the past several years. Regardless, it doesn't change the philosophy. It's been that way forever. Some people, seems like you're one of them, don't believe this and go for the flash skill players and 8-8 records.

 

[Vintage]

I don't know anything about Tennessee and how they're building their team now or have in the past several years. Regardless, it doesn't change the philosophy. It's been that way forever. Some people, seems like you're one of them, don't believe this and go for the flash skill players and 8-8 records.

To win, you need to pass the ball more efficiently than the opposing team.

I want to see pass rushers in next year's draft to achieve that. Not OGs. I'm not interested in trying to trot out the fabled 10 OG formation. I don't care if we lack eight Carl Nicks (lulz) on our roster.

I want pass rushers. But go ahead and tell me how OGs can carry teams to victories. Tennessee should support your theory after signing Levitre and starting Warmack.

 

[Rockport]

To win, you need to pass the ball more efficiently than the opposing team.

I want to see pass rushers in next year's draft to achieve that. Not OGs. I'm not interested in trying to trot out the fabled 10 OG formation. I don't care if we lack eight Carl Nicks (lulz) on our roster.

I want pass rushers. But go ahead and tell me how OGs can carry teams to victories. Tennessee should support your theory after signing Levitre and starting Warmack.

And you can't pass the ball more efficiently if you can't run the ball nor protect the QB.

 

[vlad]

Honestly very doubtful as I've not seen any ability to run block consistently...particularly in short yardage. I'd feel better going shotgun in short yardage than trying to run for it. Also means that as the year goes on and yards are harder to come by and the inevitible game of attrition comes into play defenses will become more aggressive with upfield pass rush, causing an uneasy pocket...well broken record at this point.

Having said that I am not writing off the season or anything, just can't say I've seen anything to make me think we have a serviceable oline...Romo will have to pull his usual magic and hope not to get knocked into next season. Stunts and blitzes are concerning.

Let's hope I'm 100% wrong!

I'm at 8-8 +/- 4 (real specific I know) but that's how I feel about every team in the division sans eagles.

 

[Idgit]

Well, your argument has produced 6-10, 8-8 and 8-8 the last 3 years. Nuff said.

Look at how our pass defense fared during that time, and compare it to how our offense fared and tell me again what my argument has produced. Take a look at defensive takeaways as they relate to the effectiveness of our pass defense, and tell me again that the problem was Mackenzie Bernardeau. It wasn't.

 

[Rockport]

Look at how our pass defense fared during that time, and compare it to how our offense fared and tell me again what my argument has produced. Take a look at defensive takeaways as they relate to the effectiveness of our pass defense, and tell me again that the problem was Mackenzie Bernardeau. It wasn't.

Thank you for pointing out the weak pass defense that we've had. A strong DL makes the pass defense much better. If your defense can stop the run and put pressure on the QB, there will be more turnovers.

 

[Vintage]

And you can't pass the ball more efficiently if you can't run the ball nor protect the QB.

Romo is the fifth ranked (by QB Rating) of all time. I am NOT saying QB rating is the end all, be all....

On that list, there are 4 active QBs in the top 5. 3 higher ranked than Romo.

Romo is efficient. The problem is limiting the efficiency from the other team. Coverage and pressure have been issues.

Hopefully, with Claiborne and Carr, we now have starting CBs who can cover. The issue then becomes generating a pass rush.... to make them less efficient than what Romo typically is.


We need to spend draft resources on pass rushers next year; not OGs. But go ahead and tell me how much a few 1st round OGs are really going to bring this thing together. Maybe they can be hybrid OGs/pass rushers.

 

[Idgit]

Thank you for pointing out the weak pass defense that we've had. A strong DL makes the pass defense much better. If your defense can stop the run and put pressure on the QB, there will be more turnovers.

It does. The play of the secondary and the play of the DL are obviously related.

But, since this is a thread about the OL, I take it we're in agreement, then, that the results of the poll aren't that hard to reconcile and that the real challenge for the team this season is whether or not we can stop the other teams from passing and if we can take the ball away from them when we have to every now and again. Ie, yes, the offensive line is almost certainly good enough with this years obvious upgrades to get this borderline playoff team from the last two years into the playoffs if we instead fix what's been a much bigger problem for us?

 

[Idgit]

And you can't pass the ball more efficiently if you can't run the ball nor protect the QB.

This isn't true, btw.

 

[Rockport]

This isn't true, btw.

Yes it is. To consistenly pass the ball efficiently you have to be able to run the ball and protect the QB consistently. Romo's yards come between the 20's. Once in the red zone the offense struggles because the defense knows we can't run and play accordingly.

 

[KJJ]

And you can't pass the ball more efficiently if you can't run the ball nor protect the QB.

This is coming from someone who claimed my football intellect is ignorant. LOL Not many teams pass the ball more efficiently than the Packers who have little running game and Rodgers has been sacked more than any QB in the league over the past 4 years. How do you explain that?

 

[Rockport]

It does. The play of the secondary and the play of the DL are obviously related.

But, since this is a thread about the OL, I take it we're in agreement, then, that the results of the poll aren't that hard to reconcile and that the real challenge for the team this season is whether or not we can stop the other teams from passing and if we can take the ball away from them when we have to every now and again. Ie, yes, the offensive line is almost certainly good enough with this years obvious upgrades to get this borderline playoff team from the last two years into the playoffs if we instead fix what's been a much bigger problem for us?

No, I disagree. We're not going to win the Super Bowl unless our offensive line can provide a running game and protect Romo.

 

[Rockport]

This is coming from someone who claimed my football intellect was ignorant. LOL Not many teams pass the ball more efficiently than the Packers who have little running game and Rodgers has been sacked more than any QB in the league over the past 4 years. How do you explain that?

I've explained it the other 500 times you've brought it up. You just try and confuse the subject.

 

[Idgit]

No, I disagree. We're not going to win the Super Bowl unless our offensive line can provide a running game and protect Romo.

If this were true, teams that run the ball more effectively would be able to pass the ball more effectively, and that's just not the case. Teams can pass the ball effectively with a limited running game.
And we're not losing games because of our ability to pass the ball, anyway, so why in the world would we be worrying about that second-order problem when we've got much bigger fish to fry in our own passing defense?

 

[Idgit]

No, I disagree. We're not going to win the Super Bowl unless our offensive line can provide a running game and protect Romo.

Whichever teams wins this year's Superbowl, it won't be because their OL provided the most effective running game.