Inside the numbers on our line

[jbell15]

First off, Alex Barron.
Yes, he has problems with penalties, but he has improved every year since coming in.
2005- 16 penalties
2006- 14 penalties
2007- 13 penalties
2008- 9 penalties
With a more disciplined team around him, i think he can keep improving to near 5 penalties.
Also, he gave up 7.5 sacks last year, bad.
he gave up 6.5 sacks in 2006, bad.
in 2007, playing his natural LT position, he only gave up 3 sacks!
pro bowler jason peters gave up 11.5!
I think that Barron can be an above average LT, with good coaching.

Jason Brown, Very good.
3 penalties, 2 sacks, center is locked up.

Jacob Bell.
3.5 sacks, 5 penalties.
Nobody would say his first year was great, but average.
He has the talent, but his first year in a new city i just think he needs to settle in. He is also adding weight now to be a bigger guard. He's locked in too.

Incognito, big problem.
7.5 sacks, 7 penalties.
He needs to get his head straight or

John Greco
9 partial games, 1 penalty, 1 sack.

We obviously need to add another tackle in the draft, but i REALLY think that Barron can play LT, and the numbers agree with me.
A right tackle is NOT a #2 pick, I say we wait until round two.

[39thebeast]

How does 7.5 sacks agree with you? He did give up 3 sacks at LT, but he didn't play the whole season. LT is our Biggest need Barron or not

[jbell15]

How does 7.5 sacks agree with you? He did give up 3 sacks at LT, but he didn't play the whole season. LT is our Biggest need Barron or not

How did he not play the whole season he played 16 games?
ALL but the first game of the season at LT

[codeman123]

I agree Barron is an LT. "Experts" keep on saying he is a run blocker but he can't handle the bullrush and is a much better pass blocker than a run blocker. He needs to be moved to LT so he can use his physical abilities properly. This is also my argument for Curry. LB may be a reach at #2 but RT is a huge reach. We will be able to pick up either Beatty Britton or Meridith in round 2, who are good run blockers and who can start on the line at RT next year.

[C-Mob 71]

I'm not really a big fan of O line stats, I mean I could go out there and not commit any penalties, would that make me a good lineman? Of course not. Now the sacks allowed is a different story, but even that doesn't say how many times the QB got hit or pressured. I wish there was a stat of how many times they successfully blocked their man, and how many times they got beat. This would be extremely taxing but I bet coaches and GM's do something like this every year when evaluating o line, can't they release that to us???

Anywho, I'm a IBIB. I Believe In Barron. Hope he can get his mind straight and get focused on football.

[39thebeast]

This doesn't take in acount things like pressures and how many run blocks he missed at LT. Look at the tape not the stats. If Barron was such a great how come last year Goldberg played LT when Pace went down. How much faith do you think Devaney and the crew have in Barron? I doubt it is alot. Here's a nugget when Bulger has played more than 9 games he has been sacked 30+ times.

[thoey]

I was going to create a thread on the following question, but this seems to be as good as place as any for it.

I heard a lot of complaints last year that the middle of the OL was the biggest problem. Doesn't the addition of Brown at center automatically make every other position on that line easier (not sure that is the word I am looking for)?

The guards will be able to stick to their assignment and quit peeking to see if a bull rush is coming up the middle. When they do that, the tackles can stay focused on the edge as they are not looking to see if the inside has collapsed. Everyone can be more focused on doing their job and not worrying about trying to cover for the sieve that was the center last year.

That, and with the up and coming class of 08 draftee's and anyone we get in the later rounds this year (GET CURRY!), I am not as concerned with our OL as many others are.

Maybe I am wrong. But in this case, I think the major upgrade at one position in the middle can make all five better. Pro Bowl? Probably not, but I think good enough to protect Marc better and to open holes for Jackson.

[serkicker32]

Barron didnt switch positions last year because one of the largest problems we have had on the oline over the last two years is too much instability, most of which was due to injury. It is possible that the coaches realized this after the 07 season and figured that it would be less detrimental to the line if instead of having 2 changes on the line due to one player being hurt, only having 1. Also, if Goldberg is the better tackle, Barron would not have started last year until Pace got hurt.

[RamsSB99]

This doesn't take in acount things like pressures and how many run blocks he missed at LT. Look at the tape not the stats. If Barron was such a great how come last year Goldberg played LT when Pace went down. How much faith do you think Devaney and the crew have in Barron? I doubt it is alot. Here's a nugget when Bulger has played more than 9 games he has been sacked 30+ times.

Seriously are you negative about everyones point of view that is not your own?

[39thebeast]

Seriously are you negative about everyones point of view that is not your own?

What is your problem. I'm just giving reasons why I don't think Barron should be our Left tackle. I'm not being negative about his idea i'm being negative about Barron. You have had it out for me since that Fred Robbins thing.. get over it.

[RamsSB99]

What is your problem. I'm just giving reasons why I don't think Barron should be our Left tackle. I'm not being negative about his idea i'm being negative about Barron. You have had it out for me since that Fred Robbins thing.. get over it.

I definently don't have it out for you. As far as the Fred Robins thing I don't even recall one sentence you wrote. Heck I don't know that I could recall one sentence that I wrote. Seriously I don't hold grudges. Why I said what I did was when I read several of your posts intentional or not they come across as condensending or attacking toward others if they don't agree with your stance.

Some of the statements in this thread alone are attacking in nature rather then debating a difference of opinions.

How does 7.5 sacks agree with you?

Obviously the OP did not agree with your opinion. This question is posed to him like he is an idiot for his beliefs. The same thing could be pointed out by stating "Barron has given up 7.5 sacks." Instead of phrasing it with a question that seems targeted at making fun of the OP's stance.

This doesn't take in acount

Instead of "This doesn't" meaning the OP failed with his post. Why not use "those specfic stats don't take into account". Then you are not attacking the poster for not providing the evidence as much as you are disagreeing with the stats he used.

Look at the tape not the stats.

How about just saying "He is worse then the stats indicate and it shows on tape." Instead its phrased to the OP like he has never seen a Rams game.

If Barron was such a great how come last year Goldberg played LT when Pace went down.

Again this quote is attacking the persons intelligence. The OP said he thought Barron with good coaching could be an above average LT. He never said great as was exageratted in this quote. This quote goes on the attack using the words "If Barron was such a great" instead of saying IMO he is not that great or they would have used him instead of Goldberg at LT when Pace went down. This allows both sides to express and show their opinion without trying to belittle someone for having a different opinion.

How much faith do you think Devaney and the crew have in Barron? I doubt it is alot.

This quote asked a question and then answered it for the poster as if they are not capable of answering the question. Instead of just saying I dont think Devaney and the crew have much faith in Barron.

Here's a nugget when Bulger has played more than 9 games he has been sacked 30+ times.

Again this quote is negative in nature. Why not just say the stat instead of including "Heres a nugget". People cant get their point across to others when starting with those words. Especially when they don't feel the same way.

Here is my shot at your arguments without the negativeness toward others.

How does 7.5 sacks agree with you? He did give up 3 sacks at LT, but he didn't play the whole season. LT is our Biggest need Barron or not

Rewritten:
Barron has given up 7.5 sacks which is not good. He did give up 3 sacks at LT, but he didn't play the whole season. IMO LT is our Biggest need Barron or not.

This doesn't take in acount things like pressures and how many run blocks he missed at LT. Look at the tape not the stats. If Barron was such a great how come last year Goldberg played LT when Pace went down. How much faith do you think Devaney and the crew have in Barron? I doubt it is alot. Here's a nugget when Bulger has played more than 9 games he has been sacked 30+ times.

Rewritten:
Sacks and penalties can't be used alone to define if an OT is good or not. They don't take into account how many pressures and run blocks are missed. I don't think Devaney and the crew have much faith in Barron or they probably would have started him at LT instead of Goldberg when Pace went down. One stat that stands out to me is when Bulger has played more than 9 games he has been sacked 30+ times.


I am sorry if you think of mine as an attack on you or you think I hold anything against you I don't. I think you provide good insight and you really put deep thought behind your beliefs. I just see some people that it looks like intentional or not they respond in a condensending manner toward other peoples thoughts and opinions. We all have our moments and go about things the wrong way. But it seems like some people are always looking to attack or be condensending toward others when someone don't believe the exact same way they do.

[39thebeast]

I definently don't have it out for you. As far as the Fred Robins thing I don't even recall one sentence you wrote. Heck I don't know that I could recall one sentence that I wrote. Seriously I don't hold grudges. Why I said what I did was when I read several of your posts intentional or not they come across as condensending or attacking toward others if they don't agree with your stance.

Some of the statements in this thread alone are attacking in nature rather then debating a difference of opinions.


Obviously the OP did not agree with your opinion. This question is posed to him like he is an idiot for his beliefs. The same thing could be pointed out by stating "Barron has given up 7.5 sacks." Instead of phrasing it with a question that seems targeted at making fun of the OP's stance.


Instead of "This doesn't" meaning the OP failed with his post. Why not use "those specfic stats don't take into account". Then you are not attacking the poster for not providing the evidence as much as you are disagreeing with the stats he used.


How about just saying "He is worse then the stats indicate and it shows on tape." Instead its phrased to the OP like he has never seen a Rams game.


Again this quote is attacking the persons intelligence. The OP said he thought Barron with good coaching could be an above average LT. He never said great as was exageratted in this quote. This quote goes on the attack using the words "If Barron was such a great" instead of saying IMO he is not that great or they would have used him instead of Goldberg at LT when Pace went down. This allows both sides to express and show their opinion without trying to belittle someone for having a different opinion.


This quote asked a question and then answered it for the poster as if they are not capable of answering the question. Instead of just saying I dont think Devaney and the crew have much faith in Barron.


Again this quote is negative in nature. Why not just say the stat instead of including "Heres a nugget". People cant get their point across to others when starting with those words. Especially when they don't feel the same way.

Here is my shot at your arguments without the negativeness toward others.

Rewritten:
Barron has given up 7.5 sacks which is not good. He did give up 3 sacks at LT, but he didn't play the whole season. IMO LT is our Biggest need Barron or not.


Rewritten:
Sacks and penalties can't be used alone to define if an OT is good or not. They don't take into account how many pressures and run blocks are missed. I don't think Devaney and the crew have much faith in Barron or they probably would have started him at LT instead of Goldberg when Pace went down. One stat that stands out to me is when Bulger has played more than 9 games he has been sacked 30+ times.


I am sorry if you think of mine as an attack on you or you think I hold anything against you I don't. I think you provide good insight and you really put deep thought behind your beliefs. I just see some people that it looks like intentional or not they respond in a condensending manner toward other peoples thoughts and opinions. We all have our moments and go about things the wrong way. But it seems like some people are always looking to attack or be condensending toward others when someone don't believe the exact same way they do.

I really got a good laugh out of this post. Because I say here's a nugget or this doesn't I am be condescending? come on Dude give me a break. You can interpret what I say anyway you want because frankly I don't care.

[thoey]

You two get a room and allow this thread to discuss what it was meant to...