PDA

View Full Version : Dominating O-line VS. Unstoppable D-line


Ravens1991
04-30-2007, 03:48 PM
I always wonder about this topic, I am not sure what I would rather have.

It is tough to say would I rather have a o-line like this

LT-Orlando Pace
LG-Steve Hutchinson
C-Olin Kruetz
RG-Randy Thomas
RT-Jordan Gross

compared to

DE-Jullius Peppers
DT-Shaun Rogers
DT-Tommie Harris
DE-Aaron Kampman


so what would you rather have?

bsaza2358
04-30-2007, 03:50 PM
Well, first of all, you should replace Randy Thomas with Shawn Andrews and Orlando Pace with Walter Jones.

Secondly, I have no idea. They say that defense wins championships, but offensive line and ball control can help your defense do its job. A good Oline can help your offense throw and pass, and it keeps the defense off the field to rest, so I'll pick OLine.

Ravens1991
04-30-2007, 03:51 PM
yea I just put up god players at the position, not necessarily the best because they can be argued.

bsaza2358
04-30-2007, 03:51 PM
Fair enough. I posted my rationale.

High Roller
04-30-2007, 03:53 PM
O-Line. If you have a great o-line, you can run the ball and control the game.

Boston
04-30-2007, 03:55 PM
I picked d-line. If they truly are "unstoppable," that means they can stop the run, and the pass, which would pretty much sets you up to win.

neko4
04-30-2007, 03:55 PM
Tough question...
But without a good D-Line your secondary will get exploited from a lack of pass rush and your LB's would have to do all the work against the run. Without a good O-Line your QB wont be able to find the open WR and the RB's wont find the holes, but like bsaza said if you can control the ball you can help the D, so I'd say O-Line.

Phrost
04-30-2007, 03:58 PM
I picked d-line. If they truly are "unstoppable," that means they can stop the run, and the pass, which would pretty much sets you up to win.

^^^^^^
Offense sells tickets, Defense wins championships.

princefielder28
04-30-2007, 04:00 PM
Defense wins championships!

bsaza2358
04-30-2007, 04:04 PM
No matter how you vote, it would be awesome to see that OLine and that DLine play against each other in a game that matters.

portermvp84
04-30-2007, 04:05 PM
I think I'd rather have a great oline, so my team could put points on the board.

VoteLynnSwan
04-30-2007, 04:06 PM
even the best defensive line will get winded if they're on the field the whole game. You need to control the clock, to control the clock you need to run the ball, to run the ball you need a good offensive line.

Phrost
04-30-2007, 04:08 PM
No matter how you vote, it would be awesome to see that OLine and that DLine play against each other in a game that matters.

I totally agree, maybe we could see something along those lines (no pun intended) at the pro-bowl....nope no way in hell.

bsaza2358
04-30-2007, 04:10 PM
The Pro Bowl doesn't matter at all and is a complete waste of my time. I don't care about the Pro Bowl at all. In fact, I wish they'd stop doing it at all.

Moses
04-30-2007, 04:12 PM
Offensive line. It's a lot harder to assemble a dominate offensive line than it is to assemble a dominate defensive line.

awfullyquiet
04-30-2007, 04:20 PM
a great o-line is no match for a great d-line.

but the thing is is that that D-Line you made is really just a 'specific' type d-line.
tommie harris, 3-tech. i'd take john henderson and stroud over rodgers and harris.
although i love tommie harris, he's got the moves of a DE but the power of a DT.. and he runs a 4.7... two power tackles and two speed edges (say a healthy strahan and peppers, and stroud and henderson (mostly because DT's function like the O-Line most of the time anyway... i'd rather have two guys who work well together than two guys from two teams... *shrugs*)... Olin Kreutz is the odd man out. He's smart. he's fast. He's got decent power, but he'll still get crushed by a guys big enough to play two-gap. and then at what point does lateral mobility and the 3-4 come in...

i mean.
i'd take 3-4

ks_perfection
04-30-2007, 04:21 PM
5 Pro Bowl players is better than 4.

Phrost
04-30-2007, 04:25 PM
5 Pro Bowl players is better than 4.

I don't like that logic.

Don Vito
04-30-2007, 04:26 PM
As a Pats fan I have seen us win superbowls with an average OL (especially 2001) and some great DL's. I personally prefer the DL because a very good one can make it nearly impossible for an opposing offense to be successful.

bsaza2358
04-30-2007, 04:26 PM
5 Pro Bowl players is better than 4.

I don't like that logic.

I agree with Phrost. The number of pro bowlers is irrelevant. This is a question about style of play and ones preference.

RaiderNation
04-30-2007, 04:30 PM
id take the oline

SFbear
04-30-2007, 04:30 PM
The thing with successful offensive lines is that they may have a few highly talented players at the LT spot and maybe center but overall they become successful after building chemistry and as playing as a single unit. The dropoff in production from the All-pro line and any of the above average lines in the NFL won't be that large. Defensive lines however are more about putting a bunch of athletes out there and letting them loose. Having multiple players that require double teams makes you exponentially better. Overall I think you get more bang for your buck on D-line.

Phrost
04-30-2007, 04:31 PM
id take the oline

If I had to witness what you have had to witness....I would too.

ncstateviking
04-30-2007, 04:45 PM
i would rather have the great oline. even if 2 of the olineman get beat, the others could leave the back enough wiggle room to get a few yards. if the dline has even one guy consistently getting beat by his man, the offense will exploit it.

Michigan
04-30-2007, 05:54 PM
i'm a defense first guy, but I'd take the o-line. all defenses suck when they're tired

bigbluedefense
04-30-2007, 06:30 PM
While my short answer is dline, this question is like asking which foot would you rather have, your right foot or left foot?

Regardless of what your answer is, you still need both to walk.

Shiver
04-30-2007, 06:32 PM
O-Line is more about cohesion as a unit. You can have great O-Line with talent, like the '03 Chiefs. But more likely you can have a very solid group with mid-range talent. Thus I take D-Line.

Paranoidmoonduck
04-30-2007, 06:43 PM
I'll take offensive line, but it's pretty close.

Keep in mind that we do see a great defensive line match up against a great counterpart, they only have to succeed (measured in this case in sacks) about 4 or 5 time out of 60 snaps a game to have a great day.

Donno
04-30-2007, 11:04 PM
Ill take an offensive line because Im an offensive guy and they control the line of scrimmage. They truely make or break an offense, look at the Cardinals.

The Great Jonathan Vilma
05-01-2007, 12:20 AM
although i'm a defense first guy, i would have to say that i'd rather have the dominant offensive line. They can control a game with the ground game, and give a QB enough time to make reads (hopefully any NFL QB can make the throws). they keep the defense off the field so that when they are on they are fresh, which should lead to a better defense. Plus, u'll put points on the board.

A nice D line is good, but it doesn't mean ur going to score any points to win, unless u assume the offense will get more chances. They can't control time of possession and wear out an opposing offense (well i guess they could, but would be more difficult).

I just think having the offensive line dominant gives u a better chance of success. love the grind it out football

reinar
05-01-2007, 04:59 AM
O line is what makes the passing AND the running game happen. yes the D Line can stop those, but in reality, why do you think that LB's and CB/S have more tackles on a team, cause the DLines gets worked and pushed, and blocked and its the 2nd teir that makes the stop 70+% of the time.

Good olines stop sacks, give rushing yards and short 2nd/3rd downs.

interchange
05-02-2007, 08:09 AM
Even a great defensive line is not enough if its secondary is weak. By contrast, a great offensive line really ensures that the offense has no holes. Offenses are shut down when they have to trim their playbook because they can't protect well or cant open up the right holes. Average skill players would still thrive given space to work with.

bsaza2358
05-02-2007, 08:47 AM
interchange, an excellent DLine can help make average talent in the LB and secondary better because they stuff the run and allow the LB's to flow, and they help the CB's by pressuring the QB. Your analysis doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

JoeMontainya
05-02-2007, 10:32 AM
It has to be dominate OL. Because there is 5 of them at all times. DL theres sometimes 3 or 4 on the line which cant ever match up with 5 if there all tops at the position.

bsaza2358
05-02-2007, 10:34 AM
It has to be dominate OL. Because there is 5 of them at all times. DL theres sometimes 3 or 4 on the line which cant ever match up with 5 if there all tops at the position.

The sheer number of players on the line shouldn't matter one iota. This is a question about how controlling the trenches is critically important. You are asked to choose between the two and comment on game philosophy, not the number of players. Are you also saying that LB's are less important to a defense than the DLine because there are 4 DLinemen and only 3 LB's in a 4-3 set?

umphrey
05-02-2007, 10:35 AM
Interesting topic, I'd have to say D line. With an all star D line like that, they are going to shut down the run and pressure the QB so much that it will create lots of turnovers and set up your offense nicely.

With a great O line, your skill players can still screw it up, and it doesn't help your defense as much as the D line helps your O.

I'd cite the Panthers and Chiefs of 3 years ago. When the Panthers had Jenkins and Peppers and other great players on their line and before S Smith was great, they were still making the playoffs and beating great teams. However, the Chiefs had a great O line that could run over anyone but their D was swiss cheese and they lost a lot of games.

bored of education
05-02-2007, 10:38 AM
I don't know

wogitalia
05-02-2007, 10:50 PM
Im not sure. I think personally that the OL is more dependent on coaching where as a good DL can happen without good coaching(Just look at the Vikes for a prime example).

I mean if you had that DL that is at the top of this thread, I cant see a team being able to handle it. I mean who do you give special attention to. Both lines function the same way, the rest of the offense/defense is going to have a hard time without a good line. A good pass rush helps the secondary greatly and frees the linebackers from blockers to make plays. Honestly, the 3 LB on that defense arent going to see a OL blocking them all year.

The OL does the same on offense, Chester Taylor looked good when he went left last year and looked awful going right. Basically a good OL can create a good back. All it takes is a guy with a little patience and he will look great behind a good line(See E. Smith, E. James, S. Alexander etc.). Having time to pass still wont help some QB's but most should do fine.

As for the actual question it gets back to the original comment. You can have talent at OL but if the coach doesnt get it right, it wont work. For another Vikes example, Childress managed to make Birk, Hutch and McKinnie look very average with all his flip flopping between line assignments. Using those maulers in ZBS made them look average. Whereas it didnt matter what he did with KWill and Fat Pat, they were still dominant. You really cant screw up a great DL unless you try and drop it into coverage and even then it can help at times.

So give me the defense, because the coach cant screw it up as easily.

draftguru151
05-03-2007, 07:53 AM
O line is what makes the passing AND the running game happen. yes the D Line can stop those, but in reality, why do you think that LB's and CB/S have more tackles on a team, cause the DLines gets worked and pushed, and blocked and its the 2nd teir that makes the stop 70+% of the time.

Good olines stop sacks, give rushing yards and short 2nd/3rd downs.

Making stops 7 yards down the field doesn't do much good. And having great DBs does nothing without a pass rush. Defense doesn't work without the DL.

I'd go with DL because it's easier to get by with mediocre talent on the OL because of the cohesion of the group. It's pretty much 51-49, but I'd lean DL.

SenorGato
05-05-2007, 02:49 PM
I'd say the D-line would win.

Still, I think the most important part of a football team is the O-line.

Why?

Well because without them the offense can't run or pass. That leaves the opposing team with great field position all game, your defense is tired and always having to play from behind.

someone447
05-05-2007, 02:56 PM
O-line, without a doubt. If you can control the clock, your defense will outplay theirs everytime. Defense is much more tiring, because you have to react. I would take the O-line every single time.

Yung Flippa
05-05-2007, 03:01 PM
i'm a defense dude.
defense wins championships (jus look at the Ravens)

Chucky
05-05-2007, 03:21 PM
Gonna go with Defence on this one, just because O-lineman can succeed with less talent. ALthough it also depends on the system, in the cover 2 system the D-line is probably the most important part.

TheChampIsHere
05-06-2007, 04:22 AM
I strongly disagree with the all-star lines you put together but since I am a defensive guy I think Id go with the defensive line. You put some playmakers behind that D-line, it could be flat out scary.

My all star DL would look like this though...

LE - Julius Peppers
UT - Tommie Harris
NT - John Henderson
RE - Dwight Freeney

johbur
05-06-2007, 05:44 AM
Tough call. Indy has a great O-line that keeps Manning from being hit, and they lose Edge and still have a solid run game. Steelers also had a very good O-line and Willie Parker ran them to a ring, but their defense was also hot. Ravens and Bucs won with a strong defense. If you don't have a good QB like Manning or Brady, then I'd go with a top defensive line. If you look at teams that have a top QB and have the line to protect him and let him work, they've been very successful.

Achilles33
05-06-2007, 06:28 AM
Dude your list of players sucks.

Anyway, I would take a dominant o-line over a dominant d-line anyday.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
05-06-2007, 10:19 AM
I will say O-Line. If you have a dominant O-Line, the D-Line will get exhausted over the course of the game much faster than the O-Line will.

AlexDown
05-06-2007, 11:36 AM
I'll take O-Line.

HoopsDemon12
05-06-2007, 12:22 PM
I strongly disagree with the all-star lines you put together but since I am a defensive guy I think Id go with the defensive line. You put some playmakers behind that D-line, it could be flat out scary.

My all star DL would look like this though...

LE - Julius Peppers
UT - Tommie Harris
NT - John Henderson
RE - Dwight Freeney

i voted for oline.... but that dline scares the hell out of me haha

megansett56BC
05-06-2007, 12:33 PM
i'm going to say i'd like a dominant d-line... provided that my o-line is just a solid bunch of guys with good chemistry. I think that chemistry and cohesion between offensive linemen is probably more important than the sum of each individual's skills.

but a dominating d-line could be absolutely disruptive to the entire flow of the game so i'm definitely going with.

Dunta_23
05-06-2007, 12:45 PM
I say Dominating DL....

By stopping the run, pressuring the QB, disrupting plays...you stay on the field for shorter amounts of time, cause more turnovers...create better field position...also...if you are paying a dominant DL, you are paying 4 guys rather than 5....giving you extra money to upgrade your OL :D

supermario86
05-06-2007, 06:52 PM
^^^^^^
Offense sells tickets, Defense wins championships.

I was thinking the same cliche

supermario86
05-06-2007, 06:55 PM
i'm a defense dude.
defense wins championships (jus look at the Ravens)

kickers do to ;)

Dam8610
05-06-2007, 08:48 PM
I'll take the OL, because it will help both my offense and my defense if used properly. How, you ask? Well, the offensive benefits are obvious (keep the QB upright, open holes for the RB, sustain drives, etc.), and the defensive benefits become apparent when you consider running a ball control offense. The longer your offense has the ball, the less time and therefore less oppurtunities the opposing offense has to make plays. If your offense has the ball for 10 extra minutes, your defense only has to stop the opposing offense for 20 minutes of game time, which would basically cut about 2-3 possessions out of the opposing team's offensive oppurtunities, thereby benefitting your defense.