| |
WHERE WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE DEPTH, OL OR DL????
|
|
|
|
WHERE WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE DEPTH, OL OR DL????
|
WHERE WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE DEPTH, OL OR DL????
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 2, 2007
|
|
I was just thinking about which is more important. I also think that it doesnt really matter what kind of a scheme you run either.
With the OL you can run a zone blocking or a pulling guard type of scheme. Well, no matter which one if it isnt done properly your running game will suck.
In pass protection if you dont have at least a decent line you cant throw the ball either.
On the other side of the ball you count on your DL to either stop the run or take up the blockers so that your LBs can make the plays. In a 3-4 you need the DL to keep bodies off of your LBs so that they can effectively cover stop the run or blitz.
So my question is.....
Where would you rather have better depth at? OL or DL
I thought about this when thinking about signing Shane Olivea. If the Bears were to sign him would you cut John St. Clair Israel Idonije or someone else to free up a little money and a roster spot?
|
WHERE WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE DEPTH, OL OR DL????
|
WHERE WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE DEPTH, OL OR DL????
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 2, 2007
|
|
I dont really know.
The Chargers and Patriots run a 3-4 and dont have great depth there and are good Ds. But if they get a couple of injuries to Jamal Williams or Richard Seymour they will be hurting.
The Bears lost Tommie Harris and werent the same afterwards.
Then again, the Bears had a better OL and went to the big game. The next year Fred Miller and Ruben Brown were far less effective and we sucked.
If you have a good OL you can run or pass like the Colts. If they suck then you are the Lions.
If you have a good DL you can dominate because your secondary never has a chance to get exposed. If they suck no matter how good your corners are they can get beat.
|
WHERE WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE DEPTH, OL OR DL????
|
WHERE WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE DEPTH, OL OR DL????
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 2, 2007
|
|
OK, now that i am thinking about it, i have to say the OL.
Even if your DL sucks you can blitz and stunt up front or do something to sacrifice coverage, but get pressure.
If your OL is bad you then have to keep extra blockers in all of the time and that makes it easier for the opposing D to cover your 3 or 4 receivers.
My vote after careful consideration is offensive line.
|
WHERE WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE DEPTH, OL OR DL????
|
WHERE WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE DEPTH, OL OR DL????
|
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Feb 12, 2007
|
|
I think you want more depth at DL, however, I think having a stronger OL is more important.
Assuming no injuries (which you can only do in hypathetical coversations like this) you will not only play only 5 OL a game but 5 OL a season. When you play a 4-3 you have 4 down lineman and you need to rotate them during the game. Sometimes you will usually see 6 and somtimes 7 DL play in a single game. Therefore I think depth (more bodies) on the DL is more important. If the question is which is more important to sucess I think it would be OL everytime.
|
WHERE WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE DEPTH, OL OR DL????
|
WHERE WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE DEPTH, OL OR DL????
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Jan 9, 2007
|
I would say for 31 other NFL teams, offensive line depth, but for the Bears I'm gonna have to go D-Line. The reason I say this is because we've never really relied on our offense in the past, and it's sucked for so long now, that our defense has had the responsibility of carrying our team. Since our defensive line actually has great depth right now, then yeah, I'd love for our offensive line to catch up, but looking at the Bears, and hypothetically assuming that we are building both positions from the ground up, I'd go with d-line, but it would be close. The Giants beat the Patriots with the play from their defensive line, and the one huge play that Eli made, his line did not protect him, and he threw a hail-mary pass that was miraculously caught.
I'm all about the o-line all the time, but with the Bears, and probably the Ravens as well, defense has always won it for us, so that's what I'd put my money on. It would be awesome if that changed, but I don't bet on miracles.
|
WHERE WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE DEPTH, OL OR DL????
|
WHERE WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE DEPTH, OL OR DL????
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Feb 13, 2007
|
|
My observation is that O-linemen can play effectively injured. I mean, as long as a leg has not been fractured or their knees have not lost stability, they tend to tough it out with little loss to their ability to perform.
D-Linemen depend on explosiveness and leverage and, again my opinion, are more negatively effected by injury. They also have multiple jobs in as much as they have to fight through blocks and make tackles. So, they are more likely to lose playing time due to ankles, knees, shoulders, elbow, and wrists - not to mention the various muscle pulls.
Therefore, quality depth is more important on the D-line. There is also Special Teams to think of as an athletic D-Lineman is great on on coverage teams while an big ol slow O-lineman is a liability.
|
WHERE WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE DEPTH, OL OR DL????
|
</ |
