Are we the worst O-Line in Football?

greenbay is pretty bad too.

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by 9erfan4life:
Nope

Ranked 26th in the league

nfl.com

Its based on sack % -- percent of pass plays that end in a sack.

does that matter?

Originally posted by 9erfan4life:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by 9erfan4life:
Nope

Ranked 26th in the league

nfl.com

Its based on sack % -- percent of pass plays that end in a sack.

does that matter?

Yes -- you cannot get sacked if you're handing tha ball off. Also, the % is adjusted for opponents -- you get "bonus points" if you hold a team like PIT, PHI, or MIN to only a couple of sacks. Conversely, if you give up 3 sacks to Kansas City, its like giving up 6 to a normal team.

I haven't seen Kansas City play, but in watching the 49ers it's hard to imagine how an OL could be worse than ours.

They all seem like nice guys in interviews, on the Joe Show, etc, but they just seem to get over-run by bigger, stronger defensive linemen and they struggle as a unit picking up even simple blitzes.

This would seem to indicate that there's both a talent issue and a coaching issue. It's up to McLoughan and Singletary to acquire both better players and better coaching if we're going to improve.

Looking at the Football Outsiders stats, it looks as if the best OL's in terms of both run blocking and pass protection are at New England, New Orleans, and the New York Giants. Maybe that's where we should be looking for coaching help and to sign some practice squad guys.

[ Edited by Yetiman on Nov 11, 2009 at 07:43:23 ]

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by miked1978:
We are bad. Whats funny to me is, if we had a decent o-line, we would be 5-3 easily and we would have less "The world is crashing" fans.

Actually, we've probably lost more games to sloppy secondary play vs. the deep ball more than we've lost to O-line play:

Minnesota, Atlanta, Houston, and Tennessee.

Good points seems nobody never wants to put any blame on the defense aswell. They can stop the other team.

And Niners o line is easily in the discussion as one of the worst o line's.

I think that the secondary is an easy fix in the offseason: sign a decent cover corner and move Clements to safety. He'd make a great safety -- Carlos Rogers could be a good, affordable fit @ CB.

As for the O-Line, we should draft 3 or 4 linemen the first 4 rounds of the draft. That will give us massive depth on the line and the competition will make us immediately better. Plus, by drafting that many linemen your odds of successfully drafting a star is high.

Whoa Carlos Rodgers is not the answer at all. I live in DC and he's nothing more than a nickel back in this league. I've never seen a Cb drop as many int's as Rodgers. And I would keep Nate at Cb and sign a real safety. Not sure if he would make a good FS at all. !st he would have to want to do that if he' s forced he's not gonna give it his all. I'm all for drafting o lineman 1st and foremost in this draft but, they will have to evaluate and see what other players are available at certain picks. I would rather them sign a proven guard and draft a top flight OT. Then use that other 2nd on safety or pass rusher. Then come right back to o line with other picks .

Originally posted by PRIMETIME21:
greenbay is pretty bad too.

Its really amazing that Rogers has a QB rating of 103 while being sacked 37 times. He may break the record held by Carr of 76 times in a season.

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by 9erfan4life:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by 9erfan4life:
Nope

Ranked 26th in the league

nfl.com

Its based on sack % -- percent of pass plays that end in a sack.

does that matter?

Yes -- you cannot get sacked if you're handing tha ball off. Also, the % is adjusted for opponents -- you get "bonus points" if you hold a team like PIT, PHI, or MIN to only a couple of sacks. Conversely, if you give up 3 sacks to Kansas City, its like giving up 6 to a normal team.

so where is the stat that says Ben Rothllessbburrggerr holds the ball too long and takes 15 or 20 sacks more a year than he should? You really think Pitts OL is that bad?

Originally posted by 9erfan4life:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by 9erfan4life:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by 9erfan4life:
Nope

Ranked 26th in the league

nfl.com

Its based on sack % -- percent of pass plays that end in a sack.

does that matter?

Yes -- you cannot get sacked if you're handing tha ball off. Also, the % is adjusted for opponents -- you get "bonus points" if you hold a team like PIT, PHI, or MIN to only a couple of sacks. Conversely, if you give up 3 sacks to Kansas City, its like giving up 6 to a normal team.

so where is the stat that says Ben Rothllessbburrggerr holds the ball too long and takes 15 or 20 sacks more a year than he should? You really think Pitts OL is that bad?

Yes -- The Steelers' Offensive line woes since winning the super bowl in the '05 season have been well documented. Somehow they won despite a poor offensive line last year, very rare for a poor oline to win it all.

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by 9erfan4life:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by 9erfan4life:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by 9erfan4life:
Nope

Ranked 26th in the league

nfl.com

Its based on sack % -- percent of pass plays that end in a sack.

does that matter?

Yes -- you cannot get sacked if you're handing tha ball off. Also, the % is adjusted for opponents -- you get "bonus points" if you hold a team like PIT, PHI, or MIN to only a couple of sacks. Conversely, if you give up 3 sacks to Kansas City, its like giving up 6 to a normal team.

so where is the stat that says Ben Rothllessbburrggerr holds the ball too long and takes 15 or 20 sacks more a year than he should? You really think Pitts OL is that bad?

Yes -- The Steelers' Offensive line woes since winning the super bowl in the '05 season have been well documented. Somehow they won despite a poor offensive line last year, very rare for a poor oline to win it all.

Oh OK so you'd rather have a top half of the league OL per your stats than a bottom half

Rank team
Combined wins

9 TB
14 STL
16 CLE
3 wins

21 MIN
22 PIT
23 PHI
18 wins

We're up there with KC, GB and Oak. We are pretty bad.

Pitt, Min and Philly can compensate for the OL woes....WE CANT. Not when we are still trying to establish our QB.

[ Edited by 9erluv415 on Nov 11, 2009 at 08:19:57 ]

Originally posted by 9erluv415:
We're up there with KC, GB and Oak. We are pretty bad.

Pitt, Min and Philly can compensate for the OL woes....WE CANT. Not when we are still trying to establish our QB.

Well, Green bay run blocks VERY well -- they just have an issue w/ pass protection. KC and Oakland are terrible in both run and pass blocking (like us).

yes

This line really sucks. I thought it could not get any worse than '07. Wrong.

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by miked1978:
We are bad. Whats funny to me is, if we had a decent o-line, we would be 5-3 easily and we would have less "The world is crashing" fans.

Actually, we've probably lost more games to sloppy secondary play vs. the deep ball more than we've lost to O-line play:

Minnesota, Atlanta, Houston, and Tennessee.

I blame Tennessee on Haralson's piss poor play.

We have to uprade the o-line in the off-season.