PDA

View Full Version : Is the game still won in the trenches?


BIG_DADDY
08-28-2000, 09:29 AM
I've always loved the battle at the LOS. That was where I played, and that's the heart of the game for me. Personal bias aside, is it still true that the game is won in the trenches?

I vote yes. Obviously you need a lot more than good linemen to win a SB, but I don't think you can do it without them. I look at the top contenders and see good to great lines on both sides of the ball. I look at teams with average or poor lines but still have those 'skill' positions and see them falling flat every year.

Finally here's a quote from Carl Perterson that I was glad to hear:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>
"It's always been my philosophy that you build it up front first, both the offensive line and the defensive line. If you don't have that, your perimeter guys can be tremendously ineffectual. If you can't protect your quarterback, I don't care how talented he is, he's not going to be productive. If you can't open holes for your running backs, I don't care how talented they are, they're not going to make many yards." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


------------------
EJJ

Fat Homer
08-28-2000, 09:35 AM
I believe this is true... to a point. You must have a solid OL & DL if you wish to be successful. However, investing everything into great 'trench' positions w/o bringing in great talent in 'skill positions' (QB, WR, RB) = recipie for mediocrity. We all can see it... why can't Carl/Gun?

Yosef_Malkovitch
08-28-2000, 09:36 AM
100% concur! Lineplay is where it all begins! That's why we're carrying 10 O-linemen. Gaz should be on this topic shortly, requesting a QB crushing DE.

Phil
saving Gaz some typing....

[This message has been edited by KPhobia (edited 08-28-2000).]

Warrior5
08-28-2000, 09:40 AM
Not to steal Gaz' thunder http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

I agree that it is won in the trenches. I think that the Titans turnaround from perennial mediocrity to almost SB champs was mainly due to Jevon Kearse. That's proof enough for me.

Dr. Red
08-28-2000, 09:40 AM
Eric -

I don't know.

Great offenses - are they made by the line or the impact players?

The Chiefs had great OL's over the years, but it never really got us past the 1st rd. playoffs (except when Montanna and Allen were in the same backfield). I think a great OL makes you a competitive team, but without a playmaker, you're not a contender, IMO.

On the defensive side of the ball, I think it makes all the difference in the world. A great front four makes a weak secondary look good. Pass rush and the ability to penetrate on the run makes a defense (Smith, Saleamua and Thomas lining up on the line was imposing for anyone). Without it, your secondary has to be counted on too much. A good DL can get you a lot of 3 and out's. This is something the Chiefs need desperately this year.

Yosef_Malkovitch
08-28-2000, 09:46 AM
You forgot Phillips, Chitown.

BIG_DADDY
08-28-2000, 09:49 AM
ChiTown,

I think you have to have balance, but I don't think you can get to the SB without good to great lines. Can you do it without a good to great QB and/or RB? 49er's have no oline, so it didn't matter that they had Young, Rice, Owens, etc. In Dullass their O-line depletions hurt them more than anything else IMO. Green Bay? Same deal.

Then I look at Indianpolis. Everybody talks about James, Peyton, and Harrison, but I look at an O-line that is special. The Rams recently built a great Oline. The Jags and Titans have them as well. Even the SB Broncos had a very effective line (I stop short of great becasue they were more a scheme line). Tampa Bay has picked up some of the best O-linemen from the Vikes to play opposite what many consider the best D-line in the nation.

Fat Homer
08-28-2000, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>Smith, Saleamua and Thomas<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good to see others who appreciated Big Dan's contribution to our early-90s DL! http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif IMHO, DT & Smith got most of the credit, but players like Saleamua(big-play, motor-running non-stop, locker room clown) are what solidify a line. We have Grunny on our OL -- he's the anchor... the catalyst. We don't have a guy like that on our DL. McGlockton fills that role from a physical standpoint, but he doesn't have the leadership ability. None of our other DL are leaders IMO. We need a charasmatic DT/DE like Saleamua again!

Dr. Red
08-28-2000, 09:50 AM
Thanks, Phil, you're right.

He was a big part of anchoring that DL, and certainly deserves his due.

BIG_DADDY
08-28-2000, 09:58 AM
Yea, Dr. Z put Saleamua on his All 90's team. He was quite the player.

Luzap
08-28-2000, 09:59 AM
Yes I think that you need very good play in the trenches to get anywhere at all. Look at the pats. Great QB, but with no o-line he is ineffectual.

On the balance side I believe that you need the playmakers also. That is why we drafted the cat. Gun said right up front that he wanted either a RB or WR. I think that means that He feels that we need both. This year we got the WR. If someone doesn't step up this year at RB we will fill that hole next year.

Personally I'm glad to see the youth movement in full swing!

------------------
IDAHO CHIEF FAN!!!

GO CHIEFS!!! it all counts now.

alanm
08-28-2000, 10:13 AM
What Phil said.

xoxo~
gaz
saving precious fingertip skin.

BIG_DADDY
08-28-2000, 10:27 AM
To be fair to that early 90's D-line, Albert Lewis and Kevin Ross were pretty good at hiding receivers from the QB.

redbrian
08-28-2000, 10:28 AM
You need both, but I'll take a pro-bowl QB over a pro-bowl left tackle in a heartbeat.

A good/great QB can get by with an average O-line (Marino, Elway), but a great line can't do much for an average/below average QB (Grbac). Elvis is living proof that having 3 or 4 potential Pro Bowlers on your line isn't enough.

IMO, making the O-line the highest priority is a cop-out...a way for Carl to keep from admitting that he doesn't have the ability to select good skill position players.

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

Woodrow
08-28-2000, 10:30 AM
Well stated Jonesy:

You could argue that almost all sacks have an element of coverage. Not that many sacks happen in less than two seconds from the snap. You MUST have Dbacks that can stick to recievers for a while at least to give the front guys a chance to get there.

B^2

SPUTinKC
08-28-2000, 11:02 AM
Superbowl teams have both Great Lines, and Great Skill Positions.

The Great Lines Keep your team from getting the crap kicked out of them. -

The Skill positions provide the Razzle Dazzle, and take advantage of the other teams weakness. -

The Chiefs have had Good Lines, so they rarely get the crap kicked out of them.

However the Chiefs have traditionally been lacking the Razzle Dazzle Offense that can capitalize on the other teams weaknesses, and score big points.

Luzap
08-28-2000, 11:21 AM
Clint,
I disagree. For proof see Bledsoe and the Pats.

------------------
IDAHO CHIEF FAN!!!

GO CHIEFS!!! it all counts now.

redbrian
08-28-2000, 11:26 AM
IMO Bledsoe's OL was below average last year, not to mention the Pat's gaping hole at RB. I also have my doubts about Bledsoe being a great QB right now. Pretty good, but not great, IMO.

------------------
This is my signature!! There are many like it but this one is mine!!

alanm
08-28-2000, 11:26 AM
svuba-

Excellent point concerning Great Lines Vs Playmakers.

xoxo~
gaz
would appreciate a bit of razzle dazzle in his O.<BR>