05-04-2022, 02:01 PM
(05-02-2022, 01:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Having a bad O-line does not get your QB killed any more than having a great line saves the QB. Last year Burrow was not injured behind an o-line that allowed the most sacks in team history. In 2005 Carson Palmer was injured behind an o-line that allowed the fewest sacks in team history.Are you serious?!
Considering that we have solid players at 4 of the 5 starting o-line positions I would go with the second year player over the rookie. With me it is more about winning a championship than trying to reach the impossible fantasy goal of zero sacks allowed.
This might be the funniest post I've ever seen on here!
I'd mention what kind of post it really is, but somehow it's ok for you to insult me but not the other way around........
The worse a line is, the more a quarterback gets sacked and gets hit. A quarterback generally doesn't get injured unless he gets sacked or hit and a bad offensive line means your quarterback gets sacked or hit more, so please explain to me how having a bad offensive line doesn't get your quarterback hurt more.
(05-02-2022, 01:45 PM)AtomicBlaze Wrote: That is an idiotic statement that almostFixed it for yano-onewould agree with. Every hit the QB takes is another chance at a potential injury. You want him taking as few hits as possible.
(05-02-2022, 01:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Since my statement is a fact I don't care if other people agree with it.
QBs getting injured by sacks almost never has anything to do with the number of sacks. QBs get injured in the beginning of the season at the same rate they do later in the season. If the nuber of sacks made any difference you would nto see any QBs injured early in the season but thenm they would all start dropping late in the season when the sacks added up.
The last year Andrew Luck played in the NFL he was only sacked 18 times in 639 for the LOWEST SACK RATE IN THE LEAGUE.
How is that a fact? It defies all logic and reason.
How do you think quarterbacks get hurt?