No more Excuses for the OL's PUTRID play (Romo-related)

[AMERICAS_FAN]

With Romo starting, there are no more excuses for the OL's putrid play. Up until now we hear excuses that have been leeting this bad OL off the hook; we hear things like "some of the sacks are Bledsoe's fault", implying the OL is protecting better than it seems, or we hear "we need to protect the ball better", implying that only Bledoe is at fault for all of these INTs and the pressure given up by the OL is a non-factor. Well, not any more; no more excuses. With Romo touted for his mobility and quick release it is manadtory for the OL to execute better. Any sacks or pressures, or INTs as the result of pressures, can no longer be blamed on the QB-Romo. No more letting this OL off the hook. Bledsoe took the fall for their PUTRID play; now they go without that safety net. Will they do better? I say "NO!" because their PUTRID play is at the heart of the offense's offensive problems, and because these OLinemen are what they are - PUTRID!

**

 

[Crown Royal]

Well, considering that Romo evaded 2-3 that would have most definitely been sacks on Bledsoe, I'd have to say that he is already showing that Bledsoe wasn't exactly helping them.

Plus, listen to what Parcells said in his Pc today. He pretty much indicted Bledsoe for a good amount of his sacks and the pressure.

 

[AMERICAS_FAN]

Plus, listen to what Parcells said in his Pc today. He pretty much indicted Bledsoe for a good amount of his sacks and the pressure.

Well that's part of hte point. It's easy to indict the former QB who conveniently is no longer playing; and it's harder to lay blame on the OL, where it is rightly due, since they will still be playing. The point is that there is no more Bledsoe there to take the fall for them. And to say that Romo avoided some sacks is misleading because he trew some INTs as a result of pressures - due to missed blocking assignments by the OL. Had he not thrown those passes he would have been sacked.

As I've said...NO MORE EXCUSES blaming the QB for the OL's woes. It's just wrong.

**

 

[Rampage]

i think they will be more confident with tony back there

 

[Crown Royal]

Well that's part of hte point. It's easy to indict the former QB who conveniently is no longer playing; and it's harder to lay blame on the OL, where it is rightly due, since they will still be playing. The point is that there is no more Bledsoe there to take the fall for them. And to say that Romo avoided some sacks is misleading because he trew some INTs as a result of pressures - due to missed blocking assignments by the OL. Had he not thrown those passes he would have been sacked.

As I've said...NO MORE EXCUSES blaming the QB for the OL's woes. It's just wrong.

**

His first INT had nothing to do with pressure - he threw it right to the guy.

His second INT might have been because of pressure, but more likely it was just a stupid throw.

HIs last INT was an errant pass, but he wasn't being pressured.

 

[NoLuv4Jerry]

make no mistake about it...this line is terrible...and anyone who thinks chaning the QB is going to help is drinking the kool aid. Parcells has had 4 years to get this fixed..and once again we have a below average OL. Is it that hard for an organization with our pedigree, cap room, draft picks and coaching staff come up so lame on something so critical for the entire personality of a team. An OL sets the ENTIRE TONE FOR A FOOTBALL TEAM?GAME!

We are loathe to invest in the QB or OL. We look for diamonds in the rough. We try to outsmart ourselves. The RT from Auburn was there for us in the 2nd round...we go with a TE. Max Jean Giles was still on the board in the 4th round..we pick a WR to return punts exclusivley...except he now looks like a RB.

None of our weapons on offense will ever play to their potential until we fix the OL. We have TO wide open for a TD..except we cannot keep the LBer blocked for and extra tic.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Well that's part of hte point. It's easy to indict the former QB who conveniently is no longer playing; and it's harder to lay blame on the OL, where it is rightly due, since they will still be playing. The point is that there is no more Bledsoe there to take the fall for them. And to say that Romo avoided some sacks is misleading because he trew some INTs as a result of pressures - due to missed blocking assignments by the OL. Had he not thrown those passes he would have been sacked.

As I've said...NO MORE EXCUSES blaming the QB for the OL's woes. It's just wrong.

**

Maybe you should listen to Parcell's press conference. He indicated that it was not all the line's fault.

But of course if you wish to run your own agenda... so be it.

 

[Crown Royal]

Maybe you should listen to Parcell's press conference. He indicated that it was not all the line's fault.

But of course if you wish to run your own agenda... so be it.

I already suggested that. Perhaps they will take the word of a Marx brother over Socrates.

 

[burmafrd]

I wanted Giles but has he been active at all? I looked on him as a possible new LA- but maybe he is just too slow NOW instead of at age 33 like LA was.
We wanted Colledge but he got snapped up. We remained true to our draft board which did not have anyone after him worth getting in the 2nd. And after that anyone we got would probably be sitting anyway.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

make no mistake about it...this line is terrible...and anyone who thinks chaning the QB is going to help is drinking the kool aid. Parcells has had 4 years to get this fixed..and once again we have a below average OL. Is it that hard for an organization with our pedigree, cap room, draft picks and coaching staff come up so lame on something so critical for the entire personality of a team. An OL sets the ENTIRE TONE FOR A FOOTBALL TEAM?GAME!

We are loathe to invest in the QB or OL. We look for diamonds in the rough. We try to outsmart ourselves. The RT from Auburn was there for us in the 2nd round...we go with a TE. Max Jean Giles was still on the board in the 4th round..we pick a WR to return punts exclusivley...except he now looks like a RB.

None of our weapons on offense will ever play to their potential until we fix the OL. We have TO wide open for a TD..except we cannot keep the LBer blocked for and extra tic.

Nice rant.

Too bad a great deal of it is bogus.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I already suggested that. Perhaps they will take the word of a Marx brother over Socrates.

But of course!

 

[AtlCB]

I wanted Giles but has he been active at all? I looked on him as a possible new LA- but maybe he is just too slow NOW instead of at age 33 like LA was.
We wanted Colledge but he got snapped up. We remained true to our draft board which did not have anyone after him worth getting in the 2nd. And after that anyone we got would probably be sitting anyway.

Unfortunately, Max is eating his way out of the league.

 

[NoLuv4Jerry]

refute any of my points...since they are bogus

 

[MichaelWinicki]

refute any of my points...since they are bogus

Oh you're so easy!

1. Up until Monday night this offensive line was giving this team one of its best running games in several years. A ****ty line wouldn't have done that.

2. Drew Bledsoe is an offensive line "killeh". Everywhere he goes the o-line "stinks". They sorta follow him around like Kittymamma does Juke. Maybe you haven't noticed but it takes the guy longer to "set-up" than just about any living QB on the planet and most of the dead ones.

3. Jerry said in the offseason that they would not thrust another rookie o-lineman into the starting lineup.

4. Outside of Ferguson most of the lineman available at the tackle position had pretty big flaws.

5. Neither Giles or the tackle from USC is doing squat with Philly.

6. The problem with TO has been TO not holding onto the ball and having a QB that couldn't get him the ball.

So there you go sir bogusness...

 

[CrazyCowboy]

I read that the line is extremely excited about ROMO.....especially Riveria

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I read that the line is extremely excited about ROMO.....especially Riveria

But is he "sexy" craz?

 

[NoLuv4Jerry]

can't wait to hear what you guys will come up with when Romo makes as many bonehead plays as Bledose trying to avoid sacks.

I am not a Bledsoe apologist, but our OL is the major problem with this team and it has been for years. Changing QBs, RBs, WRs, 2 TE sets will not fix the real problem wit this team.

Keep this thread open and watch and see what the new excuse will be

 

[jay cee]

I know Bledsoe has little pocket presence and even less mobility, but I just don't think the line is very good. They seem to be average at best.

And that does not cut it in my book. I know some posters claim to be elitists when it comes to the QB position, but I am an elitist when it comes to lineplay, I don't think any team can really be a title contender with an average or below average o-line.

 

[NoLuv4Jerry]

jay cee...stop making sense. And just so you know where I stand...this is not even an average OL....It is amazing we went 9-7 last year with that OL...and the only reason we lost to the Rams is because we did not care AND the OL stunk...so I think we go 10-6 last year easy...in spite of that horrendous OL

 

[Crown Royal]

I know Bledsoe has little pocket presence and even less mobility, but I just don't think the line is very good. They seem to be average at best.

And that does not cut it in my book. I know some posters claim to be elitists when it comes to the QB position, but I am an elitist when it comes to lineplay, I don't think any team can really be a title contender with an average or below average o-line.

I don't disagree that our OL is poor on pass blocking - I just think it is made much worse by the QB play at this point. Will Romo make it look better? I hope so - it can't look much worse. Will our line take us all the way? Probably not.

But I DO think that this line will start to look much different with Romo back there.