08-14-2017, 10:06 PM
(08-14-2017, 09:54 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Overall, i think you're being rough based on expecting him to get to a certain level with his technique. What if he's just not capable of doing that? What if he is always going to be what he is now?
I'd say you're looking at it strictly from the perspective of how a room full of coaches would critique him if they were sitting in a film room. That's fine with me. As i said, i like having to look at/for things i might not have otherwise looked for.
For the Bengals though, on the field, if his guy doesn't hit the QB or make the tackle, i claim that as a win as a football and Bengals fan. If he's never the technician that other really good T's are, but he keeps his guy off the Bengal with the ball, i'm happy with it.
I can pull up any game (and have) from last year that he started in and see him flailing all over the place. I wondered all along if he had a bad shoulder because he simply wouldn't use his arms and hands to fight guys off. He'd lean into them and try to control them that way and it didn't work. When i watched the game Friday night, from an instant reaction and watching it over again, i still felt trepidation because he was doing better but you could still see the indecisiveness on double moves and you could still see guys running around him a couple times.
BUT...let's talk about your big but, Simone...my overall gut reaction was that he's getting better at his job. And i REALLY trust my gut.
For my own satisfaction, i hope you keep posting. I may not have agreed with it all but i appreciate the work that was put into it and there's plenty to digest and discuss.
If that's all he's able to do, then that's all he is able to do. Which is kind of my stance, but I still think it's really worth pointing out and explaining so people better understand the position and techniques of an offensive linemen so more conversations can be held beyond "he gave up a sack" or "he didn't give up a sack" and look at the how and why and understand why some guys are more successful than others and how nuanced the position actually is and that calling other positions "skill positions" but not OL is horseshit.
(Okay I do that last one, I blame social conditioning)
I agree they can see that as a personal win and live snap to snap with him. But I don't think you can bank on that and it's incredibly risky to try and make a playoff push like that. Especially with a QB who gets as happy footed as Dalton does.
OL play is about being able to repeat the process 70+ times a game. Or however many plays you have. I think teams are averaging like 70 now or something.
It's about being able to hit your landmarks and have a repeatable stance. As silly as it sounds (because Im going to use hyperbole a bit), if you're an OL and you lose once a game and it yields a sack you will give up 16 sacks a year. And you will be labeled a bad player. Think about that. If you aren't hitting your landmarks and giving your all every rep...and if it's only 69 of 70...you can be labeled a bad player. Yet if you are a defensive play, who only wins once a game and it results in sack and you get 16 sacks in a year...you're getting 180 million dollars. Or thereabouts. Likely from the Buccaneers, only to get released and re-signed in Cincinnati.
I think people just lack levels of understanding about OL play. What seems like being rough is just basic criticism of his technique. Maybe I will do this for Fisher too, if I have the time. He isn't perfect but you see fewer of these problems.
