Vinny for you!

[Ibar_Harry]

I will throw my 2 cents out there and say the following should be the O-line with the removal of the zone blocking scheme. Close the gaps and use the following:

Wand at LT
Wiegert at LG
Washington at C
Pitts at RG
Wade at RT

If you wanted an all W line you would use Weary at RG. That would be a laugh. On a more serious note I think playing Pitts on the opposite side would take advantage of his tendency to be aggressive. Wand would be better served by having an older consistant player to help him when he gets in trouble. I think Wand would learn a great deal from Wiegert and he would gain the confidence necessary to play the position. Wiegert would not be competing for the LT position like Pitts. I think Pitts is a problem from a personnel point of view and doesn't help Wand. Washington held his own long ago and I think would be better than McKinney with the other beef beside him. We need to close down the gaps and protect our QB. Let DD find the holes which he does well in year 2. We would be alright, but they won't try something like this.

I know you will probably be critical, but I think it would be a wiser use of our personnel. I would alternate Hodgen with Washington to give him game experience. Riley could occasionally sub for Wiegert. To me Wiegert would be the key person in this lineup.

[Vinny]

ugh, why for me....how bout for a good cause or some humanitarian effort this time?

[texan279]

Originally Posted by Ibar_Harry

I will throw my 2 cents out there and say the following should be the O-line with the removal of the zone blocking scheme. Close the gaps and use the following:

Wand at LT
Wiegert at LG
Washington at C
Pitts at RG
Wade at RT

If you wanted an all W line you would use Weary at RG. That would be a laugh. On a more serious note I think playing Pitts on the opposite side would take advantage of his tendency to be aggressive. Wand would be better served by having an older consistant player to help him when he gets in trouble. I think Wand would learn a great deal from Wiegert and he would gain the confidence necessary to play the position. Wiegert would not be competing for the LT position like Pitts. I think Pitts is a problem from a personnel point of view and doesn't help Wand. Washington held his own long ago and I think would be better than McKinney with the other beef beside him. We need to close down the gaps and protect our QB. Let DD find the holes which he does well in year 2. We would be alright, but they won't try something like this.

I know you will probably be critical, but I think it would be a wiser use of our personnel. I would alternate Hodgen with Washington to give him game experience. Riley could occasionally sub for Wiegert. To me Wiegert would be the key person in this lineup.

Why dump zone blocking? The one thing that actually works for us?

[powda]

current forecasted 2006 ol:

LT d'brick ferguson
LG pitts
C eslinger
RG weigert
RT best available free agent

i woulda found a way to replace weigert to but according to the current regime "we have to have some cohesion in the line!"

what i meant to say was he's scheduled for replacement the following offseason.

[Ibar_Harry]

Originally Posted by Vinny

ugh, why for me....how bout for a good cause or some humanitarian effort this time?

Wouldn't disagree with you, but critic away if you will. I really think these are bad at putting together combinations. We need to get Wand back in there. He's far better than people think, but his confidence has been destroyed. I really want to get rid of the zone blocking. We need to close the gaps down. I don't want the other team knowing whether its a run or pass and we do not have the personnel to play zone blocking. Tighten it up and play the traditional line play. We are not a Denver either from a running back or O-line point of view..............

[Wolf]

Originally Posted by Vinny

ugh, why for me....how bout for a good cause or some humanitarian effort this time?

thanks Vinny .. I needed a chuckle

[Ibar_Harry]

Originally Posted by texan279

Why dump zone blocking? The one thing that actually works for us?

Zone blocking is probably the heart and soul to all of the problems with respect to the O-line. We do not have the personnel to play it. Zone blocking requires a very nimble QB to avoid sacks. That's one of the fundamental weaknesses of zone blocking. Why use something that's going to jepordize your QB even more.

[texan279]

Originally Posted by Ibar_Harry

Zone blocking is probably the heart and soul to all of the problems with respect to the O-line. We do not have the personnel to play it. Zone blocking requires a very nimble QB to avoid sacks. That's one of the fundamental weaknesses of zone blocking. Why use something that's going to jepordize your QB even more.

Huh? Did you watch Davis run the ball at all yesterday? The problem is with Victor freaking Riley at LT, the most important position on the O line, playing patty cake with rushing defensive lineman. The zone blocking probably makes our O line look better than it is when we rush the ball...

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Ibar_Harry

I will throw my 2 cents out there and say the following should be the O-line with the removal of the zone blocking scheme. Close the gaps and use the following:

Wand at LT
Wiegert at LG
Washington at C
Pitts at RG
Wade at RT

If you wanted an all W line you would use Weary at RG. That would be a laugh. On a more serious note I think playing Pitts on the opposite side would take advantage of his tendency to be aggressive. Wand would be better served by having an older consistant player to help him when he gets in trouble. I think Wand would learn a great deal from Wiegert and he would gain the confidence necessary to play the position. Wiegert would not be competing for the LT position like Pitts. I think Pitts is a problem from a personnel point of view and doesn't help Wand. Washington held his own long ago and I think would be better than McKinney with the other beef beside him. We need to close down the gaps and protect our QB. Let DD find the holes which he does well in year 2. We would be alright, but they won't try something like this.

I know you will probably be critical, but I think it would be a wiser use of our personnel. I would alternate Hodgen with Washington to give him game experience. Riley could occasionally sub for Wiegert. To me Wiegert would be the key person in this lineup.

Oh hell . . . why not?

That would guarantee that not a single blitz would be picked up for the rest of the season . . . but then none are getting picked up anyway, so . .

Ain't message board head coaching fun?

[Ibar_Harry]

Originally Posted by texan279

Huh? Did you watch Davis run the ball at all yesterday?

Yes, I watched him run in year 2 also. DD will get his yards from either scheme. The real question is how do you stop your QB from being killed. You have to close the gaps and keep the other team from dominating you with 3 or less D-linemen. You have to make them utilize more players in an attempt to get to the QB. That in turn gives your other offensive players a better chance to get open......................

[texan279]

Originally Posted by Ibar_Harry

Yes, I watched him run in year 2 also. DD will get his yards from either scheme. The real question is how do you stop your QB from being killed. You have to close the gaps and keep the other team from dominating you with 3 or less D-linemen. You have to make them utilize more players in an attempt to get to the QB. That in turn gives your other offensive players a better chance to get open......................

At least we can run the ball using zone blocking, I would rather have that than not being able to rush or pass the ball.

[Ibar_Harry]

Originally Posted by texan279

At least we can run the ball using zone blocking, I would rather have that than not being able to rush or pass the ball.

DD had a 1000 yards rushing in year 2 employing the other scheme and we cut our sacks way down. Our sacks went way up when we went to the zone blocking scheme. Go back to what works for this ball club based on the skills of our personnel...........................

[Scooter]

Wand - LT
Riley - LG
Hodgdon - C
Wade - RG
Pitts - RT

wand & pitts are the best bookends we've got. riley & wade are the best maulers but entirely too slow to be on the ends. mckinney & weigert are pathetic. hodgdon could fall asleep out there and still be an upgrade.

edited for spelling

[Ibar_Harry]

Originally Posted by Scooter

Wand - LT
Riley - LG
Hodgdon - C
Wade - RG
Pitts - RT

wand & pitts are the best bookends we've got. riley & wade are the best maulers but entirely too slow to be on the ends. mckinney & weigert are pathetic. hodgdon could fall asleep out there and still be an upgrade.

edited for spelling

At least you are willing to put your 2 cents worth in. Most consider Wiegert our best lineman and I think he still is, but injuries have taken a toll. That's why I put him next to Wand. At least you agree to put Pitts on the other side.

[Hervoyel]

2006

LT Brick (or bust! I'm really sick of this LT problem, hear that Bob? Fix it)
LG Pitts (Why would anyone move him at this point?)
C I don't know really, do we draft one? Sign one? Start one of ours?
RG Weigert for one more year if Milford Brown can't take his job away from him.
RT Wade or Wand. An open (and this time real) competition for the spot.

[Scooter]

i'm deffinately not a weigert or mckinney fan, and if i had my way we'd eat their salaries and drop em both. i'm not really sure why you think folks agree that weigert is our best lineman, last post on the subject made it pretty clear that pitts and wade were the only ones worth a lick atleast in the posters' eyes. i like the way both riley and wade have held up when they're able to step into the defenders. it's when they're backpedalling is when they're getting burnt. pitts i agree and think he should switch to the right side, because he's much more aggressive than wand and quicker than wade so i think he'd be the best seal we have on the right side.

[Honoring Earl 34]

How does it work if you release someone under contract ?

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by texan279

Why dump zone blocking? The one thing that actually works for us?

Ibar has no idea what he is talking about with zone blocking and refuses to listen to anyone trying to correct his misapprehensions. We do not give away our run/pass calls because of different gaps. The gaps are not even consistant all the time depending on the formation not the run/pass call. If Ibar would actually watch a game some time he would see on many plays the only way for the OL to close their gaps much more is to share a uniform. Zone blocking just happens to be primarily used by teams with mobile QB's--Plummer, Vick & Carr--it does not need a mobile QB any more than man blocking. The RB not the QB's style is much more important to the success of zone blocking--the RB needs to have good vision, hit holes with authority and have a good cutback style.

just give the ball to 37 he can do it

[eriadoc]

How does it work if you release someone under contract ?

I'm not promising I have this correct, but I *think* the team has to pay out any bonus money 100%, while remaining salary is cancelled. The bonus money then counts against the cap, and I am not even going to pretend to know how long/when it goes against the cap. IIRC, the guaranteed money has been at the heart of so many of the holdout issues. The players can be cut at any time by the team and get zero money aside from signing bonus, yet they cannot exit a contract so conveniently.

Perhaps someone a little more knowledgeable can clear it up.