How did Singletary....

Originally posted by brooklyn49er:

Originally posted by HomerJ:
13 pages about Singletary's offense?! How is this a thread?

Let alone, a thread in Niner Talk??

Yes thank you.

OK...now this made me laugh out loud!

Guys, if you don't like the thread, then don't post in it. Your lives are in no way negatively affected because of it. If you don't like the length of it, isn't it a little silly to post in it and make it longer?? There are plenty of threads I find stupid, so I just don't post in them. I don't understand what complaining about it does...

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by andes14:
get the reputation as a guy that does nothing but run the ball? Gore averaged fewer carries per game with Singletary as HC in 09/10 than he did in 06/07/08 with Turner/Hostler/Martz running the offense...I never understood how there are all these articles talking about how all Sing did was run, run, run despite 8 and 9 men in the box. The stats just don't back that up.

he got few carries bc the drives fizzled out from 3 and outs

No that's not the reason. We ran more plays than the previous years and we passed at a higher rate as well. 3 and outs/total plays had NOTHING to do with it.

we passed the ball when we were down by 28 in the second half

And we ran the ball when we were down by 28 in the second half from '06-'08? Not to mention, we were down big way more often from '06-'08 than we were in '09/'10.

you honestly dont remember all the times we called the same run play on 1st and 2nd down that set us up for the long 3rd down?

really?

If it happened as often as you think it did, the run/pass ratio would reflect that. But it doesn't.

why dont you look up how much we passed the ball in the 1st half vs the second half. im going to guess we passed much more in the 2nd half against prevent defense

In the '09 and '10 seasons combined, Gore had only 2 more carries in the 1st half then 2nd half. That has been said 100 times in this thread. Next.

i didnt ask how many carries Gore had in each half

Ya, you kinda did indirectly. If Gore carried the ball essentially the same amount in both halves, we clearly didn't enter the "pass much more" mode in the 2nd half. More running=less passing and vice versa. Not too complex of a concept.

by looking at how much we pass in the 2nd half vs 1st half, you would see that we passed more in the 2nd half against prevent defense. Drives were sustained longer bc we were up against a lot of prevent defense. A lot of passing plays were called when we were losing at the end of games. I hope that isnt too complex of a concept.

LOL- then why does Smith have more 1st half pass attempts over the last 2 years than 2nd half pass attempts? Riddle me that...

in 2010 he had more pass attempts in the 2nd half

he had 95 total pass attempts when we were ahead, 202 when were behind

Ya, and Matt Schaub had 90 pass attempts when winning and 381 when behind

What's your point? All teams throw more when trailing...

That is why the ratio you are talking about doesnt reflect Singletary run first mentality. We passed more bc of the fact that is what teams do to put points on the board when they are behind. If we were in more games or ahead, the ratio most likely would be a much different ratio favoring the run game

Yes, but we were behind even more often from '06-'08 yet still passed the ball at a lower rate and ran it at a higher rate back then than we did these past 2 years...

ok who cares about other coaches? This thread is about Singletary and last year

The ORIGINAL point was that I didn't think it made sense that he had the reputation given that we passed more and ran less under him than we did from '06-'08 with Turner/Hostler/Martz running the offense, so no, the thread is not just about last year. It's about comparing the last 2 years with the previous 3.

thats pretty stupid to give credit to singletary for 2 years of coaching

its also stupid considering Singletary say in the offensive play calling decreased as his career went on to the eventual firing.

he also has the reputation bc he has said it himself that he likes to run the ball

Mike Martz also said it himself that JT O'Sullivan was the best QB he ever coached. Doesn't make it true.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:


Your opinion IS without value. The Steelers had arguably the worst OL in 2008 and they won it all. Hence your statement that "you can't have a good team with a bad OLine" is CLEARLY wrong. How is that even debatable?

Quit responding then, we (you) are wasting our time...unless you want to provide some proof that the Steelers were "the worst OL in 2008" which you have not.

Do you not remember that year at all? All season the Steelers were infamous for having an absolutely BRUTAL o-line. I mean, for god's sake, even the niners' 2009 o-line was way better. Pitt started freakin' Max Starks, Chris Kemoeatu, Justin Hartwig, Darnell Stapleton, and Willie Colon in the Super Bowl. At least we had some decent OL like Staley and Heitmann. That Steelers line was TRASH. Even the Packers' line this year was pretty stinkin' bad. Aaron Rodgers over the last few years has gotten hit as much as anyone in the league AND he has a super quick release.

Look it up! Worst Steelers line rating was 24th, while the 9ers were 31st. Steelers were also ranked in the top ten in some 2008 ratings. Big Ben was blasted for holding the ball all day. Green Bays line improved as soon as Rogers stopped holding the ball all day. Imagine! People have criticized Smith for throwing the ball away but commend Big Ben and Rogers for being sacked. Yes...it's all the lines fault!

Was it also Big Ben's fault that only 3 teams had fewer yards per carry that season. I can't believe you think Pitt had a good line that year. Look at those names. Starks. Kemoeatu. Hartwig. Stapleton. Colon. Do any of them strike you as even being average?

Can't win an argument by misquoting! Never said their line was good in 2008. Better than the 9ers 2010 line...yes. Lines who have played together for a while tend to be better than lines who are completely new to each other. That was my original point. The 9ers line has the potential to be a first rate line but must learn to play together and have some continuity for a few years. That would include coaches.

IN 2008 Willie Parker was injured early in the season and his replacement, rookie Mendenhall went down with a fractured shoulder in game four. I wonder why their run game suffered!?

AHA! But you DID say you can't have a good team without a good o-line and that's precisely what the case was with the '08 Steelers.

Pick many cherries lately? Parker had 138 yards and 3 touchdown in the first game of 2008 before being injured. At that pace the line would have "earned" a pretty good rating. With their first and second string running backs injured their rating went down.

Would you please do some research before making sweepingly general statements about how good or bad players are?

You JUST admitted their o-line wasn't good!!!!! And now you're backtracking because now you realize that makes your initial point look dumb since you said you can't have a good team without a good o-line.

Besides, all the analysts and experts all year long were absolutely ripping their o-line. Look at those 5 dudes that started the Super Bowl. None of them are even as good as a Staley or Heitmann. Not even close.

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:


Your opinion IS without value. The Steelers had arguably the worst OL in 2008 and they won it all. Hence your statement that "you can't have a good team with a bad OLine" is CLEARLY wrong. How is that even debatable?

Quit responding then, we (you) are wasting our time...unless you want to provide some proof that the Steelers were "the worst OL in 2008" which you have not.

Do you not remember that year at all? All season the Steelers were infamous for having an absolutely BRUTAL o-line. I mean, for god's sake, even the niners' 2009 o-line was way better. Pitt started freakin' Max Starks, Chris Kemoeatu, Justin Hartwig, Darnell Stapleton, and Willie Colon in the Super Bowl. At least we had some decent OL like Staley and Heitmann. That Steelers line was TRASH. Even the Packers' line this year was pretty stinkin' bad. Aaron Rodgers over the last few years has gotten hit as much as anyone in the league AND he has a super quick release.

Look it up! Worst Steelers line rating was 24th, while the 9ers were 31st. Steelers were also ranked in the top ten in some 2008 ratings. Big Ben was blasted for holding the ball all day. Green Bays line improved as soon as Rogers stopped holding the ball all day. Imagine! People have criticized Smith for throwing the ball away but commend Big Ben and Rogers for being sacked. Yes...it's all the lines fault!

Was it also Big Ben's fault that only 3 teams had fewer yards per carry that season. I can't believe you think Pitt had a good line that year. Look at those names. Starks. Kemoeatu. Hartwig. Stapleton. Colon. Do any of them strike you as even being average?

Can't win an argument by misquoting! Never said their line was good in 2008. Better than the 9ers 2010 line...yes. Lines who have played together for a while tend to be better than lines who are completely new to each other. That was my original point. The 9ers line has the potential to be a first rate line but must learn to play together and have some continuity for a few years. That would include coaches.

IN 2008 Willie Parker was injured early in the season and his replacement, rookie Mendenhall went down with a fractured shoulder in game four. I wonder why their run game suffered!?

AHA! But you DID say you can't have a good team without a good o-line and that's precisely what the case was with the '08 Steelers.

Pick many cherries lately? Parker had 138 yards and 3 touchdown in the first game of 2008 before being injured. At that pace the line would have "earned" a pretty good rating. With their first and second string running backs injured their rating went down.

Would you please do some research before making sweepingly general statements about how good or bad players are?

You JUST admitted their o-line wasn't good!!!!! And now you're backtracking because now you realize that makes your initial point look dumb since you said you can't have a good team without a good o-line.

Besides, all the analysts and experts all year long were absolutely ripping their o-line. Look at those 5 dudes that started the Super Bowl. None of them are even as good as a Staley or Heitmann. Not even close.

Hmm...misquoting again. And where did I say their line "wasn't good?" Listen carefully:

Pitts 2008OL was rated between top ten and 24th depending on which webpage you check.

Both 1st and 2nd string RBs were injured early in the year.

1st game--Parker ran for 138 yds and 3 touchdowns, pretty decent line play.

Big Ben is known for holding the ball too long.

Over twenty years of experience compared to the 9ers ten.

Now go back to arguing whether Singletary called too many running plays...

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:


Your opinion IS without value. The Steelers had arguably the worst OL in 2008 and they won it all. Hence your statement that "you can't have a good team with a bad OLine" is CLEARLY wrong. How is that even debatable?

Quit responding then, we (you) are wasting our time...unless you want to provide some proof that the Steelers were "the worst OL in 2008" which you have not.

Do you not remember that year at all? All season the Steelers were infamous for having an absolutely BRUTAL o-line. I mean, for god's sake, even the niners' 2009 o-line was way better. Pitt started freakin' Max Starks, Chris Kemoeatu, Justin Hartwig, Darnell Stapleton, and Willie Colon in the Super Bowl. At least we had some decent OL like Staley and Heitmann. That Steelers line was TRASH. Even the Packers' line this year was pretty stinkin' bad. Aaron Rodgers over the last few years has gotten hit as much as anyone in the league AND he has a super quick release.

Look it up! Worst Steelers line rating was 24th, while the 9ers were 31st. Steelers were also ranked in the top ten in some 2008 ratings. Big Ben was blasted for holding the ball all day. Green Bays line improved as soon as Rogers stopped holding the ball all day. Imagine! People have criticized Smith for throwing the ball away but commend Big Ben and Rogers for being sacked. Yes...it's all the lines fault!

Was it also Big Ben's fault that only 3 teams had fewer yards per carry that season. I can't believe you think Pitt had a good line that year. Look at those names. Starks. Kemoeatu. Hartwig. Stapleton. Colon. Do any of them strike you as even being average?

Can't win an argument by misquoting! Never said their line was good in 2008. Better than the 9ers 2010 line...yes. Lines who have played together for a while tend to be better than lines who are completely new to each other. That was my original point. The 9ers line has the potential to be a first rate line but must learn to play together and have some continuity for a few years. That would include coaches.

IN 2008 Willie Parker was injured early in the season and his replacement, rookie Mendenhall went down with a fractured shoulder in game four. I wonder why their run game suffered!?

AHA! But you DID say you can't have a good team without a good o-line and that's precisely what the case was with the '08 Steelers.

Pick many cherries lately? Parker had 138 yards and 3 touchdown in the first game of 2008 before being injured. At that pace the line would have "earned" a pretty good rating. With their first and second string running backs injured their rating went down.

Would you please do some research before making sweepingly general statements about how good or bad players are?

You JUST admitted their o-line wasn't good!!!!! And now you're backtracking because now you realize that makes your initial point look dumb since you said you can't have a good team without a good o-line.

Besides, all the analysts and experts all year long were absolutely ripping their o-line. Look at those 5 dudes that started the Super Bowl. None of them are even as good as a Staley or Heitmann. Not even close.

Hmm...misquoting again. And where did I say their line "wasn't good?" Listen carefully:

Pitts 2008OL was rated between top ten and 24th depending on which webpage you check.

Both 1st and 2nd string RBs were injured early in the year.

1st game--Parker ran for 138 yds and 3 touchdowns, pretty decent line play.

Big Ben is known for holding the ball too long.

Over twenty years of experience compared to the 9ers ten.

Now go back to arguing whether Singletary called too many running plays...

You said that you never said their o-line was good. In the english language that implies that you think they weren't good or else you wouldn't have said that. And again, you're placing too much emphasis on experience. Is Barry Sims better than Jake Long because he has more experience? Is Kerry Collins better than Matt Ryan since he's been in the league forever? Come on now. Name one good player from that Steelers o-line. I dare you. Or even from the NFC champ Cardinals. Mike Gandy. Reggie Wells. Lyle Sendlein. Deuce Lutui. Levi Brown. The 10 guys that started on the offensive line that game had a combined ZERO career pro-bowl appearances. Yet they each won their conference. Don't get me wrong- offensive lines are critical and a lot of the time great teams have great lines, but you clearly can't make an absolute statement like you don't have a good team if you don't have a good line.

Originally posted by andes14:
I can't address the things you say because they are getting ridiculous.

Most of what you've said in this thread is ridiculous, but I still addressed your argument. BTW if you're gonna address my post, at least address the WHOLE post. You've been picking what points to argue and ignoring other points I made.

Originally posted by andes14:
You're like taking out Gore's best runs which are obviously gonna lower his yards per carry. You say it's only 8 like that's justifiable

Of course his YPA is gonna be lowered. I'm not arguing that. I'm trying to point out that without Gore's OCCASIONAL BIG RUNS we weren't efficient on the ground. Without those carries we weren't running the ball well. 8 carries = occasional.

If I was removing ALL of Gore's best runs then it wouldn't be justifiable. But in this case I'm only removing EIGHT. His YPA dropped (obviously like it should), but it dropped to numbers that show an inefficient run game.

Originally posted by andes14:
if you take out just 3 runs from Chris Johnson's 2009, his yards per carry drops by nearly a full yard. I guess Tennessee had a terribly inefficient run game in 2009.

What I did to the following stats is the same thing I did to Gore's 2009 numbers. Chris Johnson's BEST run over 20 yards was removed from each game. Overall, 10 carries were removed (more than the 3 you suggested).

CHRIS JOHNSON'S 2009 SEASON STATS:

OPPONENT-----ATT-----YARDS-----AVG
VS ARI----------17--------69 --------4.1 *85 yard run was removed
VS BUF----------25-------100--------4.0
VS HOU---------44--------257-------5.8 *91 yard run was removed
VS IND----------36-------147--------4.1 *No run was removed from this game, CJ didn't have a 20+ yd run
VS JAC----------39-------222--------5.7 *89 yard run was removed
VS MIA----------29-------104--------3.6 *No run was removed from this game, CJ didn't have a 20+ yd run
VS NE-----------16--------80---------5.0
VS NYJ----------21--------67---------3.2
VS PIT----------14--------25---------1.8
VS STL----------27--------78 --------2.9
VS SD-----------20-------112--------5.6
VS SF-----------24--------94---------3.9
VS SEA----------36-------134--------3.7 *No run was removed from this game, CJ didn't have a 20+ yd run

According to you, taking out 3 runs from CJ's 2009 season will drop his YPC by nearly a full yard and show that Tennessee had a "terribly inefficient run game in 2009". Well I removed 10 runs and this is what we get:

CJ's YPC dropped by more than 1 yard. He goes from an amazing 5.6ypc to a good 4.3ypc. EVEN WITHOUT his 10 best runs (3 of them even going over 85+), the Titans STILL had an efficient run game. Gore on the other hand goes from a great 4.9ypc to a poor 3.3ypc. Basically...without the best run from each game, Tennessee goes from a great running team to a good running team while the 49ers go from a great running team to a poor running team.

Consistency = efficiency. Tennessee maintained a good ground game even without the occasional big runs. SF struggled to do anything on the ground without Gore breaking the OCCASIONAL big run.

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by andes14:
I can't address the things you say because they are getting ridiculous.

Most of what you've said in this thread is ridiculous, but I still addressed your argument. BTW if you're gonna address my post, at least address the WHOLE post. You've been picking what points to argue and ignoring other points I made.

Originally posted by andes14:
You're like taking out Gore's best runs which are obviously gonna lower his yards per carry. You say it's only 8 like that's justifiable

Of course his YPA is gonna be lowered. I'm not arguing that. I'm trying to point out that without Gore's OCCASIONAL BIG RUNS we weren't efficient on the ground. Without those carries we weren't running the ball well. 8 carries = occasional.

If I was removing ALL of Gore's best runs then it wouldn't be justifiable. But in this case I'm only removing EIGHT. His YPA dropped (obviously like it should), but it dropped to numbers that show an inefficient run game.

Originally posted by andes14:
if you take out just 3 runs from Chris Johnson's 2009, his yards per carry drops by nearly a full yard. I guess Tennessee had a terribly inefficient run game in 2009.

What I did to the following stats is the same thing I did to Gore's 2009 numbers. Chris Johnson's BEST run over 20 yards was removed from each game. Overall, 10 carries were removed (more than the 3 you suggested).

CHRIS JOHNSON'S 2009 SEASON STATS:

OPPONENT-----ATT-----YARDS-----AVG
VS ARI----------17--------69 --------4.1 *85 yard run was removed
VS BUF----------25-------100--------4.0
VS HOU---------44--------257-------5.8 *91 yard run was removed
VS IND----------36-------147--------4.1 *No run was removed from this game, CJ didn't have a 20+ yd run
VS JAC----------39-------222--------5.7 *89 yard run was removed
VS MIA----------29-------104--------3.6 *No run was removed from this game, CJ didn't have a 20+ yd run
VS NE-----------16--------80---------5.0
VS NYJ----------21--------67---------3.2
VS PIT----------14--------25---------1.8
VS STL----------27--------78 --------2.9
VS SD-----------20-------112--------5.6
VS SF-----------24--------94---------3.9
VS SEA----------36-------134--------3.7 *No run was removed from this game, CJ didn't have a 20+ yd run

According to you, taking out 3 runs from CJ's 2009 season will drop his YPC by nearly a full yard and show that Tennessee had a "terribly inefficient run game in 2009". Well I removed 10 runs and this is what we get:

CJ's YPC dropped by more than 1 yard. He goes from an amazing 5.6ypc to a good 4.3ypc. EVEN WITHOUT his 10 best runs (3 of them even going over 85+), the Titans STILL had an efficient run game. Gore on the other hand goes from a great 4.9ypc to a poor 3.3ypc. Basically...without the best run from each game, Tennessee goes from a great running team to a good running team while the 49ers go from a great running team to a poor running team.

Consistency = efficiency. Tennessee maintained a good ground game even without the occasional big runs. SF struggled to do anything on the ground without Gore breaking the OCCASIONAL big run.

How is anything I've said in this thread ridiculous? All I'm saying is we ran at a lower rate and passed at a higher rate these last 2 years than the previous 3 and that's clearly the case. There's no way you can spin it where it's not.

Originally posted by andes14:
Guys, if you don't like the thread, then don't post in it. Your lives are in no way negatively affected because of it. If you don't like the length of it, isn't it a little silly to post in it and make it longer?? There are plenty of threads I find stupid, so I just don't post in them. I don't understand what complaining about it does...

Just don't how it relates or matters seeing how he is now a LB coach for Minn, or some team. Running an offense wasn't his strength.

Originally posted by HomerJ:

Originally posted by andes14:
Guys, if you don't like the thread, then don't post in it. Your lives are in no way negatively affected because of it. If you don't like the length of it, isn't it a little silly to post in it and make it longer?? There are plenty of threads I find stupid, so I just don't post in them. I don't understand what complaining about it does...

Just don't how it relates or matters seeing how he is now a LB coach for Minn, or some team. Running an offense wasn't his strength.

Actually it turns out nothing was his strength...

Originally posted by Bobbi9698:

Originally posted by HomerJ:

Originally posted by andes14:
Guys, if you don't like the thread, then don't post in it. Your lives are in no way negatively affected because of it. If you don't like the length of it, isn't it a little silly to post in it and make it longer?? There are plenty of threads I find stupid, so I just don't post in them. I don't understand what complaining about it does...

Just don't how it relates or matters seeing how he is now a LB coach for Minn, or some team. Running an offense wasn't his strength.

Actually it turns out nothing was his strength...

He did light the fire that got Vernon Davis turned around. But besides that. I'm thinking LB coach is probaly where he belongs.

Originally posted by andes14:


You said that you never said their o-line was good. In the english language that implies that you think they weren't good or else you wouldn't have said that. And again, you're placing too much emphasis on experience. Is Barry Sims better than Jake Long because he has more experience? Is Kerry Collins better than Matt Ryan since he's been in the league forever? Come on now. Name one good player from that Steelers o-line. I dare you. Or even from the NFC champ Cardinals. Mike Gandy. Reggie Wells. Lyle Sendlein. Deuce Lutui. Levi Brown. The 10 guys that started on the offensive line that game had a combined ZERO career pro-bowl appearances. Yet they each won their conference. Don't get me wrong- offensive lines are critical and a lot of the time great teams have great lines, but you clearly can't make an absolute statement like you don't have a good team if you don't have a good line.

Wow! I also did not say that cats make bad barbers! Does that mean I want one to cut my hair? Come on now, stop trying to interpret what is not stated. If you don't understand a post ask a question for clarity, stop putting words in other's mouths.

As far as Barry Simms goes, I think he did very well replacing Staley on the left but not so good on the right side before that. I also made a comment you are ignoring that too much experience is not necessarily a good thing (hence the use of the words "too much"). Remember when you used the words million years of experience?

Let's see, 22 divided by five equals 4.4 years of experience...which is when OLinemen tend to be peaking. As opposed to 10 years divided by 5 equals 2 years of experience which is still young for an OLineman.

You are so funny! Carry-on!

[ Edited by dtg_9er on Jul 31, 2011 at 15:43:13 ]

Originally posted by BHulman:

Originally posted by Bobbi9698:

Originally posted by HomerJ:

Originally posted by andes14:
Guys, if you don't like the thread, then don't post in it. Your lives are in no way negatively affected because of it. If you don't like the length of it, isn't it a little silly to post in it and make it longer?? There are plenty of threads I find stupid, so I just don't post in them. I don't understand what complaining about it does...

Just don't how it relates or matters seeing how he is now a LB coach for Minn, or some team. Running an offense wasn't his strength.

Actually it turns out nothing was his strength...

He did light the fire that got Vernon Davis turned around. But besides that. I'm thinking LB coach is probaly where he belongs.

No doubt- I'm thrilled we got Harbaugh as coach and Singletary definitely had his flaws, including HOW he ran the ball, but now HOW MUCH he ran the ball.

Originally posted by andes14:
How is anything I've said in this thread ridiculous? All I'm saying is we ran at a lower rate and passed at a higher rate these last 2 years than the previous 3 and that's clearly the case. There's no way you can spin it where it's not.

Ok I apologize. Forget I said that your posts were ridiculous. This isn't about how your/my posts are ridiculous or not. Lets just stick to the discussion.

You said we ran at a lower rate and passed at a higher rate. I acknowledged that and explained why I thought that happened. Yet once again you dodged my points.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by andes14:


You said that you never said their o-line was good. In the english language that implies that you think they weren't good or else you wouldn't have said that. And again, you're placing too much emphasis on experience. Is Barry Sims better than Jake Long because he has more experience? Is Kerry Collins better than Matt Ryan since he's been in the league forever? Come on now. Name one good player from that Steelers o-line. I dare you. Or even from the NFC champ Cardinals. Mike Gandy. Reggie Wells. Lyle Sendlein. Deuce Lutui. Levi Brown. The 10 guys that started on the offensive line that game had a combined ZERO career pro-bowl appearances. Yet they each won their conference. Don't get me wrong- offensive lines are critical and a lot of the time great teams have great lines, but you clearly can't make an absolute statement like you don't have a good team if you don't have a good line.

Wow! I also did not say that cats make bad barbers! Does that mean I want one to cut my hair? Come on now, stop trying to interpret what is not stated. If you don't understand a post ask a question for clarity, stop putting words in other's mouths.

As far as Barry Simms goes, I think he did very well replacing Staley but not so good on the right side before that. I also made a comment you are ignoring that too much experience is not necessarily a good thing (hence the use of the words "too much"). Remember when you used the words million years of experiene?

Let's see, 22 divided by five equals 4.4 years of experience...which is when OLinemen tend to be peaking. As opposed to 10 years divided by 5 equals 2 years of experience which is still young for an OLineman.

You are so funny! Carry-on!

LOL. Why would you make a point of saying you never said they had a good o-line if you actually did indeed think they had a good o-line. I never in this thread said Joe Montana was a great quarterback, but I still won't say "I never said Joe Montana was a great quarterback" because of what that obviously would imply. So you'd rather have a back-up Joe Schmo in his 5th year, than say Mike Iupati since he's only in his 2nd year? f**k experience. How good and talented you are matters way more than experience. Why was every single analyst and expert on the planet ripping Pittsburgh's o-line if they had a good one? Name one good player from EITHER line in that super bowl. You still haven't. How do TEN dudes combine for ZERO pro-bowls if they had good lines? There's no way...