Why has Logan Mankins and the line been so bad?


for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
bakahump said:
See and thats the argument that everyone shouts me down with.
"well the Pats/Denver/Colts are awesome....so obviously its a passing league!"  Yea when you have a HOF QB. There are a dozen teams in No mans land who also try to win in this league.  They dont care if its a passing, running or special teams league....they simply want to compete.
My theory isnt that you CANT succeed with a pass first/heavy offense.  When you have TB or Manning or Rodgers or Brees you very well SHOULD be passing alot...and devoting a boat load of resources, personnel and monetarily, to do so.
The problem is that 26 other teams are all trying to be the Pats/Denver/Colts with QBs who are not nearly as talented.  Because 30 ish teams are all throwing the ball a boat ton defenses adapted. 
Teams started saying "hey we need to stop Peyton, Brady, Big Ben, Flacco if we want to succeed in the playoffs. So we need Fast light linemen who can get after the QB.   We need fast Tampa 2 LBers who can cover guys out of the Backfield.  We need light fast CBs and Safeties who can cover alot of ground.  We need to stop the pass!!"  Offenses around the league fell into the trap of saying "well if they can do it so can we" at exactly the same time that defenses where adapting to stop the philosophy they where trying to implement.
Players like Spikes and Wilfork (to give 2 hometown examples) became the exception.  Safeties like Lott or Rodney or Atwater became the exception/Unwanted because they wouldnt be able to cover the 4 reciever sets with a RB coming out of the back field.  Instead you had the Spikes and Wilforks as specialty players who played 10 snaps a game. With teams building their defenses to stop the pass by allocating more talent and money to that task they left themselves vulnerable to being able to stop the run by not having enough of the talent to do so.
So your an Offense, going against one of these defenses. If you have Tom Brady or Peyton Manning you say bring it, our best is better then your best.  If your a Jacksonville or Cleveland your best is gonna get smoked trying to pass. You simply dont have the personnel to do so.
Why wouldnt you want to try to pound the run against the lighter defenses of todays league? Try to push those little DLs around the field. Try to get into those little, fast, contact averse second levels. Remember the Pats of 03 and 04 destroying Mathis, Freeney, Brackett and Sanders?  Every defense is built the way the colts were now.
Again I never dreamed that the Pats or Colts or Packers or Denver would be doing this....but with a QB who can bail out 3 and longs more often then others it might make some sense.
I am excited to see how something like Chip Kellys offense grows and if it succeeds the way I suspect it could, after he has had a year to teach and acquire more talent specific to that philosphy.
Finally I suspect that people think I am saying our defense should be big and slow to stop the run.  Not true....I want a Defense designed to stop the current climate of the NFL....which right now is the Pass. Which is how Every other current defense is designed.  That same reasoning is exactly why I think an OFFENSE designed to Run (and not the triple option or full house....simply an offense with resources dedicated to the run.  Bigger OL. Bigger blocking TEs. WRs adept at Blocking. Talented Backs. A FB. etc etc) would be successful.  They would be the exception to the current climate. Because the NFL is cyclical someone will try this and get ahead of that curve.  If it succeeded then offenses would copy it while Defenses would adapt to be bigger to stop the growing number of Run Offenses.   Until then a "Run Heavy Offense" could be very interesting as it leads into the next "cycle of NFL Offenses".
Um, I meant that the game plan against Denver was to dare them to run and that the Patriots beat them precisely because Denver fell for it...


Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
Reverend said:
Um, I meant that the game plan against Denver was to dare them to run and that the Patriots beat them precisely because Denver fell for it...
Oh....   :)


SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
If you dont have a quarterback then teams can play a lot of 8 (or 9) in the box and put those heavy personnel that dont play most weeks onto the field.  I dont think there's any path to success in the NFL without finding a good QB.  The '03-'04 Pats succeeded in large part because they had a balanced offense and a really good QB so defenses were off balance.
Given how efficient passing is compared to running, its a real hard sell to me that a run heavy offense is a good path to success.