Why Michael Bennett is a star & OL issues slightly overblown

[Chukarhawk]

I fail to understand how we could possibly over blow the O-line issues. The Texans game was truly awful, the QB had less than 2.5 seconds to execute a fake, find a receiver, and get rid of the ball for most of the game. He was pounded on. Every hit he takes could be The Golden BB. How do you over blow the seriousness of that? 120 passing yards. 5 sacks. A dozen more sacks if our QB isn't on roller skates. There isn't enough hyperbole to overblow the problem.

The sad fact is that while McQ stinks at LT, it is the one guy who played his true position and is a starter, Sweezy, that was the absolute worst vs the Texans. Of course, the issues were magnified because the Texans have 3 awesome frontline players. But think about that, the worst player that game was the only guy in his natural spot.

How did Pete sum up the O-line? "We survived". He meant he is happy as hell his QB is intact. I'll bet you he is pretty freaked out about his O-line.

Every game we win right now is because the rest of the team is making up for the O-line's pass blocking.

Very well put, on dropbacks, no QB has been sacked or hit more than Wilson this year. Thats a superbowl dream killer right there. No team can overcome that. It has to be fixed.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Per FO, here are how Denver and Seattles opponents ranked defensively:
Denver:
vs Baltimore - 12th
vs NYG - 22nd
vs Oak - 28th
vs Philly - 30th
Average DVOA = 9.2%
That's basically playing the 24th ranked defense on average.

Seattle:
vs Hou - 5th
Vs Carolina - 10th
vs SF - 18th
vs Jax - 27th
Average DVOA = -2.6%
That's basically playing the 16th ranked defense on average.

What kind of offenses have they faced? Because inept offenses make it harder on the defense.
Denver
vs Baltimore - 26th
vs NYG - 31st
vs Oak - 24th
vs Philly - 5th
Average DVOA = -8.3%
That's basically playing the 24th ranked offense on average

Seattle
vs Hou - 22nd
Vs Carolina - 8th
vs SF - 17th
vs Jax - 32nd
Average DVOA = -14.4% but in this case, the average includes a HUGE outlier: Jacksonville is the historically worst offense of all time. At -67.1%, it throws any average off.
Average DVOA (excluding Jacksonville) = 3.2%
That's basically playing the 15th ranked offense on average, then playing Jax.


If you give Jax an offensive DVOA equal to NYG's, the next worst offense, the average DVOA is still -3.8%, or the 20th ranked offense.

So no matter how you want to cut it, Denver has, on average, played the 24th ranked offense and 24th ranked defense each game. OF COURSE, they look really good. Outside of Jacksonville - a team so bad a non bowl college team could probably beat it - the Hawks have actually played against some quality opponents.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

no QB has been sacked or hit more than Wilson this year. Thats a superbowl dream killer right there. No team can overcome that. It has to be fixed.

Surely they are overcoming it? Given we're 4-0.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

no QB has been sacked or hit more than Wilson this year. Thats a superbowl dream killer right there. No team can overcome that. It has to be fixed.

Surely they are overcoming it? Given we're 4-0.

You aren't going to continue to overcome that. Wear and tear will set in, or shell shock, or one massive hit will take him out. It's playing Russian Roulette. It has to be fixed. But nothing can really fix it except playing weaker defenses that will allow you to run the ball effectively on them.

Fortunately for us, Indy has one of those kinds of defenses. Unfortunately for us, they bring Mathis and a darn good pass rush.

 

[formido]

If he is getting it out quick, it is a slot route. Eventually those are going for picks.

Exactly. I don't think it's an accident we don't have many hot routes. Eventually, especially against the best teams and when the pressure is on, they lead to INTs. See Schaub.

 

[Popeyejones]

It's playing Russian Roulette.

Wanted you to have written Russell Roulette so badly that I somehow misread it as that two times in a row.

Ah well.

 

[DavidSeven]

No team lets plays develop longer than Seattle. That's a fact. This is not a team that has the personnel or scheme to use a quick-fire passing offense. Hurry-up can help mask deficiencies in your line, but we don't really use it for philosophical reasons. Our banged up line is definitely an issue and not one that we're built to get around easily without sacrificing skill players for added protection.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

I'm thinking back to recent Super Bowl winners, and seeing several good QB's playing behind bad lines who won rings.

 

[Laloosh]

Hmmm. Interesting way to look at our O-line. Are you saying you don't think Peyton Manning would be dead or in a hospital right now if he played behind our line? Already this year, we have seen a lot of instant pocket collapses, or someone shooting straight toward Wilson right after the snap. The O-line is an easy target to lay blame on, for sure, but our pass protection has looked pretty bad, even when we had Giacomini and Okung.

I watched the SF vs IND game again last night and I started counting after every snap that Andrew Luck took. In many cases, the ball was on it's way to a target or thrown away in under three seconds.

Contrast that with Wilson (who generally has less than 3 seconds unless I'm mistaken) and he's generally running or taking a sack in that timeframe. I actually think Luck might not get killed because he gets the ball out of his hands (oh wait, would he have to run Bevel's offense or just use our o-line?).

 

[HawKnPeppa]

I'm thinking back to recent Super Bowl winners, and seeing several good QB's playing behind bad lines who won rings.

Over simplify much？ There are various degrees of suckitude. The Hawks' pass pro is not even within sniffing distance of mediocre at this time. Conveniently filing O-lines that range from so, so to aweful under the catgory of 'bad' is glossing things over at best.

 

[ivotuk]

Something else that needs to be mentioned here, a big reason we were able to come back late in the game is because our offense, including the play calls made, wore Houston's defense down. The Texans were suffering both physically and mentally. Our offense beat the hell out of them and I won't be surprised if they get beat badly in SF.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

I'm thinking back to recent Super Bowl winners, and seeing several good QB's playing behind bad lines who won rings.

Over simplify much？ There are various degrees of suckitude. The Hawks' pass pro is not even within sniffing distance of mediocre at this time. Conveniently filing O-lines that range from so, so to aweful under the catgory of 'bad' is glossing things over at best.

So it's over-simplifying because it doesn't suit your argument?

Prove me wrong. Make the case for the Packers offensive line during their last title, or the Steelers before that. Both lines sucked and were statistically among the worst in the NFL.

This notion that a bad o-line is a Super Bowl killer is nonsense. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. Our line isn't even bad... it's just injury hit. And we're 4-0 despite coping with four changes to our line.

 

[hawk45]

Thank you Roland and ScotteMojo. Obviously we have a really good team and a nails QB with the skillset to overcome a horrid OL, but it's impossible to overstate the train wreck there.

I'm not saying we can't continue to win ballgames, that'd fly in the face of the evidence of 4-0. But anyone watching Wilson get killed game after game must submit that the OL is THE major problem with this team. It is perhaps the only problem with the team, which is why we're winning, but it still has the capacity to be a fatal one against a good defense, which we'll inevitably face in the playoffs.

I don't know that I believe it's in Cable to construct a line that blocks at an elite level on passing downs, but I hold out hope he can restore it to a passable status. I think a passable pass pro is good enough to win it all. We're miles away at the moment because of the injuries mainly.

 

[bestfightstory]

I fail to understand how we could possibly over blow the O-line issues. The Texans game was truly awful, the QB had less than 2.5 seconds to execute a fake, find a receiver, and get rid of the ball for most of the game. He was pounded on. Every hit he takes could be The Golden BB. How do you over blow the seriousness of that? 120 passing yards. 5 sacks. A dozen more sacks if our QB isn't on roller skates. There isn't enough hyperbole to overblow the problem.

The sad fact is that while McQ stinks at LT, it is the one guy who played his true position and is a starter, Sweezy, that was the absolute worst vs the Texans. Of course, the issues were magnified because the Texans have 3 awesome frontline players. But think about that, the worst player that game was the only guy in his natural spot.

How did Pete sum up the O-line? "We survived". He meant he is happy as hell his QB is intact. I'll bet you he is pretty freaked out about his O-line.

Every game we win right now is because the rest of the team is making up for the O-line's pass blocking.

Bravo, Scottie, Bravo!

 

[plyka]

I'm thinking back to recent Super Bowl winners, and seeing several good QB's playing behind bad lines who won rings.

Over simplify much？ There are various degrees of suckitude. The Hawks' pass pro is not even within sniffing distance of mediocre at this time. Conveniently filing O-lines that range from so, so to aweful under the catgory of 'bad' is glossing things over at best.

So it's over-simplifying because it doesn't suit your argument?

Prove me wrong. Make the case for the Packers offensive line during their last title, or the Steelers before that. Both lines sucked and were statistically among the worst in the NFL.

This notion that a bad o-line is a Super Bowl killer is nonsense. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. Our line isn't even bad... it's just injury hit. And we're 4-0 despite coping with four changes to our line.

Again you're selectively picking olines from 2 teams that won "in recent times." That's not an argument. I can say you can win the Superbowl with a below average QB because Dilfer and that QB from Tampa who sucks so much I don't even remember his name, won rings. Just because you can find an exception to a rule doesn't mean the rule does not exist. This is one reason statisticians rely on blind test cases.

 

[ClumsyLurk]

No team lets plays develop longer than Seattle. That's a fact. This is not a team that has the personnel or scheme to use a quick-fire passing offense. Hurry-up can help mask deficiencies in your line, but we don't really use it for philosophical reasons. Our banged up line is definitely an issue and not one that we're built to get around easily without sacrificing skill players for added protection.

this right here. We should know the OL sucks, maybe there is a reason (other than youth or eternal energy) that late in the game when time is running out that we are able to come back from big deficits. Maybe we need to hurry up more.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

Again you're selectively picking olines from 2 teams that won "in recent times." That's not an argument. I can say you can win the Superbowl with a below average QB because Dilfer and that QB from Tampa who sucks so much I don't even remember his name, won rings. Just because you can find an exception to a rule doesn't mean the rule does not exist. This is one reason statisticians rely on blind test cases.

What exactly is wrong with me selectively picking those examples? All my argument has to do is prove that it isn't necessarily a Super Bowl killer to tolerate a bad line. I've done that by listing Green Bay and Pittsburgh.

It's a water tight argument. It doesn't mean any team with a crappy line can win it. It does mean that it's proven if you have enough quality in other areas (which we undoubtedly do) it's no guarantee the world will collapse because you're fielding a bad line.

And again, if people want to say the sky is falling because JJ Watt and (according to Bedard's stats) the best pass rushing defense in the NFL abused a line containing only one player (Sweezy) starting in his intended position, you can do that. I'd argue when Unger, Breno and eventually Okung get back, we won't be having this debate.

 

[brimsalabim]

Sweezy is inexperienced. He wasn't supposed to have to carry the line the rest of the O line was supposed to carry him while learns. The problem is we have guys who need to tough up and play ball.

 

[scakfan]

I fail to understand how we could possibly over blow the O-line issues. The Texans game was truly awful, the QB had less than 2.5 seconds to execute a fake, find a receiver, and get rid of the ball for most of the game. He was pounded on. Every hit he takes could be The Golden BB. How do you over blow the seriousness of that? 120 passing yards. 5 sacks. A dozen more sacks if our QB isn't on roller skates. There isn't enough hyperbole to overblow the problem.

The sad fact is that while McQ stinks at LT, it is the one guy who played his true position and is a starter, Sweezy, that was the absolute worst vs the Texans. Of course, the issues were magnified because the Texans have 3 awesome frontline players. But think about that, the worst player that game was the only guy in his natural spot.

How did Pete sum up the O-line? "We survived". He meant he is happy as hell his QB is intact. I'll bet you he is pretty freaked out about his O-line. Every game we win right now is because the rest of the team is making up for the O-line's pass blocking.

Not true about Sweezy but you have your opinion.. Most of the team failed in the 1st half so to blame it all on the O-line is shortsighted!!!!

 

[General Manager]

The O-line has problems right now and needs to be better. Wilson rarely has a clean pocket.