D. J. Fluker, OT/OG Alabama

[Fleet]

What a great oppertunity to come out and punch them in the face all game long. Show very little of the playbook and try and out physical them on both sides of the ball.

LOL. Agreed. Thats a tough opener for us. I hope the refs aren't keeping an eye on holds in the trench. 8 probowlers. 4 in the trenches.

[Steve]

The problem is those "minor short term lumps" will be absorbed by #17...

So, we go with the second best option, never develop a decent RT, and he takes more hits long term, plus the whole team suffers for lack of a RT. That makes sense, since that is the implication of what you are proposing.

There is always a balance to be struck. But since Fluker is probably going to be a huge upgrade in terms of his ability to run block, and that alone will probably dramatically reduce the hits on Rivers total, I think we come out way, way ahead. DL have a much harder time rushing the passer if they have to even their feet in their stance more, so they aren't exploding off the ball like a sprinter. And DL lose their explosion in their legs if they have to stand in and hold up against our OL firing into them. Not to mention the down and distance thing.

Fluker may give up a few more hits in pass protection, but total hits i think we will be way ahead. It will just depend on how fast his pass protection develops.

As far as JJ Watt, I would much rather we try and run vs Houston's front. They are a good run D, but they are great at get man on man matchups. I'll take my chances on the running the ball on them thing, and mixing in fewer short passes. But I wouldn't take any OL in football and want to sit back and throw all day vs the Houston pass rush with Watt.

[Den60]

So, we go with the second best option, never develop a decent RT, and he takes more hits long term, plus the whole team suffers for lack of a RT. That makes sense, since that is the implication of what you are proposing.

There is always a balance to be struck. But since Fluker is probably going to be a huge upgrade in terms of his ability to run block, and that alone will probably dramatically reduce the hits on Rivers total, I think we come out way, way ahead. DL have a much harder time rushing the passer if they have to even their feet in their stance more, so they aren't exploding off the ball like a sprinter. And DL lose their explosion in their legs if they have to stand in and hold up against our OL firing into them. Not to mention the down and distance thing.

Fluker may give up a few more hits in pass protection, but total hits i think we will be way ahead. It will just depend on how fast his pass protection develops.

As far as JJ Watt, I would much rather we try and run vs Houston's front. They are a good run D, but they are great at get man on man matchups. I'll take my chances on the running the ball on them thing, and mixing in fewer short passes. But I wouldn't take any OL in football and want to sit back and throw all day vs the Houston pass rush with Watt.

I'm just bringing up the obvious. Personally, I don't think you can "develop" the quickness Fluker needs to be effective on the outside. I would hope that those in charge of putting together the roster won't try to force a square peg into a round hole if they find out they have a square peg.

As for running the ball I would say that you can do that as long as the game is close (to a point) or in the lead but again I would be pointing out the obvious. I suppose the admission of many on here about how we will need to cover up the deficiencies of this o-line leads me to be pessimistic about this season. I do think that there will be times when we will not only have to throw the ball, but throw the ball downfield as well. Oh, and we will be doing that when the opposing defense knows that is what we have to do.

[Steve]

You seem to ignore the obvious, actually. We need to run the ball and stay out of situations that will hurt us, and Fluker can be a big part of that. This is not going to be an OL that is going to be able to throw 50-60 times a game. They aren't good enough in pass protection to sit back and take on guys rushing hard, play after play. But they are huge. They are all solid run blockers, who can move well as a unit. If it is a strength of the team to run the ball, even if we lack a featured back, why not make it the center-point of the offense, particularly if we are not a strong group of pass protectors.

First, there are a lot of RT in football, now and in the recent past, who were not in any way quick. Playing OL is a lot less about physical gifts and more about technique. I agree, ideally you would like a guy who is super quick to be out there. Clearly both Philly and KC like the idea well enough to draft rookie LT prospects to play RT (Joeckel and Fischer). But you are crazy to say you know that he can't play RT because he isn't quick enough, at least not without seeing him play first. Again, there are plenty of examples who can prove you wrong that guys who are not quick cannot play.

If anything, if he is too sluggish to play outside, he isn't going to do much better inside. OG need quickness too. You aren't going to get into your block if you can't fire out and get lower then the DT. And an ILB is going to be past you in a heartbeat if you are not quick off the mark.

Second, I am not just talking about running the ball on a certain down and being successful. running the ball, and wearing down a D is a 4 quarter activity. You run the ball and pound on DL/LB in the 1st and 2nd quarter, in order to wear them down and rob them of the explosion in their legs. So, even if we need to throw the ball in the 4th quarter, you set that up early on, and it helps the pass protection because of it.

And I don't know why you think this is something new. Coaches at every level, no matter how dominant game plan about overcoming deficiencies. And even if it s not a real "problem", you do it anyway to perform at a higher level. For example, give me any OL in football right now, and our week 1 game vs Houston wouldn't change. I don't want to give their DL and OLB a chance to tee off on our QB, so there is a going to be a heavy dose of running the ball, and wearing them down. The only guy on their line I am really scared of is Watt, but as a unit they are a very good pass rushing group, and it is silly to think we would not try to handicap them in their pursuit of matchups against us. That is what game planning/scripting/playcalling is about.

That is the chess match aspect of football. If we had gotten 2 rookie LT (say Joeckel AND Fischer), I wouldn't change the idea of game planning around their strengths and weaknesses. It is just something you do, period. You want them to build confidence and develop their skills, so you work within them, while forcing them to develop their weaknesses in less critical situations and in practice. In time, they will overcome them, but every player who has ever played faces this, and it is nothing new.

The square peg thing is an relevant comment, but consider that you may be just as guilty of it, if not more so, then the people you are afraid of.

[Den60]

You seem to ignore the obvious, actually. We need to run the ball and stay out of situations that will hurt us, and Fluker can be a big part of that. This is not going to be an OL that is going to be able to throw 50-60 times a game. They aren't good enough in pass protection to sit back and take on guys rushing hard, play after play. But they are huge. They are all solid run blockers, who can move well as a unit. If it is a strength of the team to run the ball, even if we lack a featured back, why not make it the center-point of the offense, particularly if we are not a strong group of pass protectors.

First, there are a lot of RT in football, now and in the recent past, who were not in any way quick. Playing OL is a lot less about physical gifts and more about technique. I agree, ideally you would like a guy who is super quick to be out there. Clearly both Philly and KC like the idea well enough to draft rookie LT prospects to play RT (Joeckel and Fischer). But you are crazy to say you know that he can't play RT because he isn't quick enough, at least not without seeing him play first. Again, there are plenty of examples who can prove you wrong that guys who are not quick cannot play.

If anything, if he is too sluggish to play outside, he isn't going to do much better inside. OG need quickness too. You aren't going to get into your block if you can't fire out and get lower then the DT. And an ILB is going to be past you in a heartbeat if you are not quick off the mark.

Second, I am not just talking about running the ball on a certain down and being successful. running the ball, and wearing down a D is a 4 quarter activity. You run the ball and pound on DL/LB in the 1st and 2nd quarter, in order to wear them down and rob them of the explosion in their legs. So, even if we need to throw the ball in the 4th quarter, you set that up early on, and it helps the pass protection because of it.

And I don't know why you think this is something new. Coaches at every level, no matter how dominant game plan about overcoming deficiencies. And even if it s not a real "problem", you do it anyway to perform at a higher level. For example, give me any OL in football right now, and our week 1 game vs Houston wouldn't change. I don't want to give their DL and OLB a chance to tee off on our QB, so there is a going to be a heavy dose of running the ball, and wearing them down. The only guy on their line I am really scared of is Watt, but as a unit they are a very good pass rushing group, and it is silly to think we would not try to handicap them in their pursuit of matchups against us. That is what game planning/scripting/playcalling is about.

That is the chess match aspect of football. If we had gotten 2 rookie LT (say Joeckel AND Fischer), I wouldn't change the idea of game planning around their strengths and weaknesses. It is just something you do, period. You want them to build confidence and develop their skills, so you work within them, while forcing them to develop their weaknesses in less critical situations and in practice. In time, they will overcome them, but every player who has ever played faces this, and it is nothing new.

The square peg thing is an relevant comment, but consider that you may be just as guilty of it, if not more so, then the people you are afraid of.

Again, if you fall behind in a game you generally lose the luxury of using your ground game. I haven't even brought up the fact that our ground game largely depends on Mathews staying healthy and that is a rather significant "if" IMHO.

I understand the concept about having holes to cover up and that it isn't "new." But when your team's most significant hole is basically the entire offensive line I wonder just how much scheming is going to be able to overcome that. Call me "old fashioned" but I do think games are won in the trenches.

I also worry that Fluker may not be quick enough to be a great guard. Athleticism is why Cooper was chosen before Warmack in the draft. Fluker might be more of a Fonotti type road grader insider but at least he will be covered up on passing downs. I am not the one saying that he is an "all-pro" guard. I do think, however, that he is better suited there than at tackle based on what I saw of him last season. I never said I "know" anything about how he will work out at any position along the line, just that I am not very optimistic about his potential at OT. I suppose I can throw it back on you and say you don't know squat either, eh? I don't put much credence in training camp reports from hardcore fans because they are generally much more optimistic than realistic. Also, one has to wonder just how much of a test our OLBs are giving our OTs in camp. It isn't like we are flush with talent at that position either.

I'm not sure what you mean with me being guilty of putting square pegs in any round holes with this team. The only players I question about where they are being looked at is Fluker at RT and Gilchrist at SS - the latter because we are pretty damned thin at CB.

[Stinky Wizzleteats+]

There is just no pleasing some people.

Thats just what Jesus said!

Elms for an old x lepper?

[6025]

There is just no pleasing some people.

Thats just what Jesus said!

Elms for an old x lepper?

Bring out your dead.

[oneinchpunch]

Blessed are the cheese makers!

[Stinky Wizzleteats+]

Aw shut up big nose!

[6025]

I'm Brian, and so is my wife!

[Steve]

Again, if you fall behind in a game you generally lose the luxury of using your ground game. I haven't even brought up the fact that our ground game largely depends on Mathews staying healthy and that is a rather significant "if" IMHO.

I understand the concept about having holes to cover up and that it isn't "new." But when your team's most significant hole is basically the entire offensive line I wonder just how much scheming is going to be able to overcome that. Call me "old fashioned" but I do think games are won in the trenches.

I also worry that Fluker may not be quick enough to be a great guard. Athleticism is why Cooper was chosen before Warmack in the draft. Fluker might be more of a Fonotti type road grader insider but at least he will be covered up on passing downs. I am not the one saying that he is an "all-pro" guard. I do think, however, that he is better suited there than at tackle based on what I saw of him last season. I never said I "know" anything about how he will work out at any position along the line, just that I am not very optimistic about his potential at OT. I suppose I can throw it back on you and say you don't know squat either, eh? I don't put much credence in training camp reports from hardcore fans because they are generally much more optimistic than realistic. Also, one has to wonder just how much of a test our OLBs are giving our OTs in camp. It isn't like we are flush with talent at that position either.

I'm not sure what you mean with me being guilty of putting square pegs in any round holes with this team. The only players I question about where they are being looked at is Fluker at RT and Gilchrist at SS - the latter because we are pretty damned thin at CB.

Again, if you start running the ball before you fall behind, and mix in the run, you can wear down pass rushers, and it doesn't take all game long. It is incredibly rare that you fall down so far you cannot run at all. Not that teams don't give up on the run to do so, but usually they don't have to. If you do fall that far behind, IMHO, you might as well go to more of a balanced approach.

I don't really think running the ball a lot has anything to do with Mathews. He is the type of guy who has special run skills, but you don't have to have that. OJ Anderson (RB) for the Giants help them win a SB, and they averaged a very pedestrian 3.5 yards per carry. But they had a great run blocking line (that struggled some with their pass blocking too by the way) and they just ran the ball down peoples throats. They had to make all their big plays via the pass, and they didn't get any explosive plays. But they adjusted their play calling and kept controlling the clock, and won a lot of games, including the SB. I am fine with just handing the ball to a stable of solid backups if we have to, and I haven't written of Mathews. But even if he doesn't come through, I am not ready to give up on him.

As far as sustaining our running game, you have to average 3.4 yards per carry per 3 downs to sustain a ground game. Granted, we need to work on our median carry, but even if we have someone pretty average, they don't need to be great. I would rather Mathews steps up, but we will see about that. But we will have 3 or 4 RB, so if Mathews goes down, the other 3 backs will need to split 30 carries (assumes a balanced O, 60 offensive plays a game), giving 10 plays per game per RB. If they average 3.5 yards per carry, we get just about 105 yards rushing, which isn't steller, but would be a big improvement over what we have been doing recently.

Writing off Fluker as being unable to play RT without ever playing a down at RT in the NFL ----------->>>>>>> SQUARE PEG

Gilchrist is the D version of trying to get the 4 best players as starters, similar to the approach being used at OL. I don't think anyone is going to disagree with the idea that we are thin at CB, but if we don't move Gilchrist to S, then we are thin at S. Long term, S might be his better spot, although I am not so sure about that. I was not impressed with his play in college, I thought he was a better CB. But some of that just depends on how we plan to use him at SS.

[Den60]

Again, if you start running the ball before you fall behind, and mix in the run, you can wear down pass rushers, and it doesn't take all game long. It is incredibly rare that you fall down so far you cannot run at all. Not that teams don't give up on the run to do so, but usually they don't have to. If you do fall that far behind, IMHO, you might as well go to more of a balanced approach.

I don't really think running the ball a lot has anything to do with Mathews. He is the type of guy who has special run skills, but you don't have to have that. OJ Anderson (RB) for the Giants help them win a SB, and they averaged a very pedestrian 3.5 yards per carry. But they had a great run blocking line (that struggled some with their pass blocking too by the way) and they just ran the ball down peoples throats. They had to make all their big plays via the pass, and they didn't get any explosive plays. But they adjusted their play calling and kept controlling the clock, and won a lot of games, including the SB. I am fine with just handing the ball to a stable of solid backups if we have to, and I haven't written of Mathews. But even if he doesn't come through, I am not ready to give up on him.

As far as sustaining our running game, you have to average 3.4 yards per carry per 3 downs to sustain a ground game. Granted, we need to work on our median carry, but even if we have someone pretty average, they don't need to be great. I would rather Mathews steps up, but we will see about that. But we will have 3 or 4 RB, so if Mathews goes down, the other 3 backs will need to split 30 carries (assumes a balanced O, 60 offensive plays a game), giving 10 plays per game per RB. If they average 3.5 yards per carry, we get just about 105 yards rushing, which isn't steller, but would be a big improvement over what we have been doing recently.

Writing off Fluker as being unable to play RT without ever playing a down at RT in the NFL ----------->>>>>>> SQUARE PEG

Gilchrist is the D version of trying to get the 4 best players as starters, similar to the approach being used at OL. I don't think anyone is going to disagree with the idea that we are thin at CB, but if we don't move Gilchrist to S, then we are thin at S. Long term, S might be his better spot, although I am not so sure about that. I was not impressed with his play in college, I thought he was a better CB. But some of that just depends on how we plan to use him at SS.

I think you're way off the mark here. Teams get taking out of their offensive game plans all the time (it is kinda sorta the game plan for the defense). You get down by a couple of TDs and you are then playing against the clock on top of playing your opponent. Third and 3.2 is more likely a passing down than a running down by the way.

I don't view Brown or Woodhead as early down backs. Both seem to be best when throwing the ball (as in a 3rd down offense situation) rather than running between the tackles. When it comes to that I think the job belongs to Mathews.

I don't think you understand the concept of a square peg being put in a round hole. Maybe using the putting the cart before the horse cliche would be more appropriate for what behavior you are attributing to me? Or perhaps counting chickens before they've crossed the road? Bird in the hand is better than two in El Centro...