Bob Sacamano
All-Pro
- Messages
- 26,436
- Reaction score
- 3
We signed a LB today. Kyle Knox, formerly of New Orleans. Don't know much about him.
The writeup from Broaddus is generally positive though
No kidding. When he worked for ESPN Dallas, he was critical of a lot. Since Jerry hired him, almost never.When does Broaddus ever write anything that's not sunshine and ponies?
Tony wasn't as mobile as he's been in the past and it's a wait and see thing to see if he regains mobility. I saw many times where our linemen at different times simply got beat on the pass rush too though.I think we need to tap the brakes on the "this O-line" thing. Unless we are talking about playcalling and/or the scheme having heavy contribution to the success of the offense, the O line can't be considered anything great until it does something great: usually that means the success of the running back and or the protection of the QB. Last year, the RB was record setting and league leading so, safely speaking, you could conclude that OLine showed at least that Callahan designed and called Running plays were successful with this group. Was it the plays, the O line or the runningback? We will see. But that group also gave up 29 sacks of Romo in 15 games in what some call Romo's best year with his best running game support he has ever had. That's only 6 sacks less than one of Romo's worst years in taking a beating. Scheme argument and playcall argument aside, the O-line crowning has to wait until after the success of the either the running game or the pass protection (or both). Right now they are just some great specimen who have a good chance. Imagine a team with the two fastest WRs in the league (maybe ever), the all time leading rusher and the leagues strongest player. How great would you think the chances were for success? Imagine 2001.
This current O line has nothing other than hope that they can at least have some or most of the success from last year. But I don't know how that is going to be measured other than running back production in yards or TDs and/or QB protection.
Sure, feel free to tap the breaks on GOAT, and yes, of course the RB matters, but this OL is clearly no worse than very good.
Apparent contradiction - Garrett tells media he spoke with Randle about meat-on-the-bone quote. Later, Randle is asked by media if Garrett had talked to him about the quote. Randle answers "Not at all."
I think we need to tap the brakes on the "this O-line" thing. Unless we are talking about playcalling and/or the scheme having heavy contribution to the success of the offense, the O line can't be considered anything great until it does something great: usually that means the success of the running back and or the protection of the QB. Last year, the RB was record setting and league leading so, safely speaking, you could conclude that OLine showed at least that Callahan designed and called Running plays were successful with this group. Was it the plays, the O line or the runningback? We will see. But that group also gave up 29 sacks of Romo in 15 games in what some call Romo's best year with his best running game support he has ever had. That's only 6 sacks less than one of Romo's worst years in taking a beating. Scheme argument and playcall argument aside, the O-line crowning has to wait until after the success of the either the running game or the pass protection (or both). Right now they are just some great specimen who have a good chance. Imagine a team with the two fastest WRs in the league (maybe ever), the all time leading rusher and the leagues strongest player. How great would you think the chances were for success? Imagine 2001.
This current O line has nothing other than hope that they can at least have some or most of the success from last year. But I don't know how that is going to be measured other than running back production in yards or TDs and/or QB protection.
PETA called...they want their gerbil back, chris.