BearsFansOnline.com

It isn't just about the measurable as far as height and weight, it's can they play and do what needs to be done. Now don't take that as saying we should have a 260 lb line, but who cares what leno's stats are if he is an above average starting LT in the league and keeps the QB upright? Who cares if a guard is 350 or 305 as long as he can block the scheme correctly? J'marcus Webb is 6'7" and 330 lbs yet can't block for shit.

NFL DE's were all 295 - 320 for a while, now we are back to the quicker 250-275 lb guys being popular.

The falcon's had the #1 offense and should have won a superbowl with the lightest line in the league 2 seasons ago. It's speed, technique and scheme fit.

southdakbearfan wrote:It isn't just about the measurable as far as height and weight, it's can they play and do what needs to be done.

True, and I like Daniels, just not next to Leno and at guard. Lance Louis was similar size but powerful. I wouldn't have the same contention with him. Though Daniels career will be better.

You don't need size/power when you are running a zone based scheme... look at Atlanta, look at the glory years of the Denver Broncos. Of course you want offensive linemen with core strength and the ability to anchor, but I'm pretty sure I can count on one hand how many times I've seen Charles Leno put on his ass by a defensive lineman.

G08 wrote:You don't need size/power when you are running a zone based scheme... look at Atlanta, look at the glory years of the Denver Broncos. Of course you want offensive linemen with core strength and the ability to anchor, but I'm pretty sure I can count on one hand how many times I've seen Charles Leno put on his ass by a defensive lineman.

That's not very accurate. Yes you can sacrifice some power for athleticism in zone. However if you look at the teams mentioned in this thread as examples they have some powerful dudes. You are right all linemen need some ability to anchor. Having 2 players who are not as good at it playing next to eachother seems like a liability.

Leno gets walked back. He is very good at mirroring, and has good balance. Plus having powerful dudes next to him has kept the gap clean. I have never complained about him because he has had Sitton or Long next to him.

A line with Whitehair at LG and Daniels at OC just makes more sense to me. I'll eat crow if wrong, but Daniels next to Leno will down grade both spots.

Again I like Leno and Daniels. I feel like I am ragging on them when I am not. Daniels would get stronger. But right now defenses would be wise to play a 3T.

I've said it since Leno was inserted in the lineup, his feet and ability to route his guy around the back of the pocket long enough for his QB to move around in it is what keeps him in the starting lineup. He's helped tremendously by mobile QB's. It's no coincidence that he struggled when Glennon was back there.

Daniels just looks like a natural center. He's so fluid and quick. Whitehair looks like a tackle who should be a guard trying to play center because there's been no one else to do it.

If it works with Daniels at guard, great. But it wouldn't surprise me even a little bit if Whitehair is your opening day LG.

mmmc_35 wrote:

G08 wrote:You don't need size/power when you are running a zone based scheme... look at Atlanta, look at the glory years of the Denver Broncos. Of course you want offensive linemen with core strength and the ability to anchor, but I'm pretty sure I can count on one hand how many times I've seen Charles Leno put on his ass by a defensive lineman.

That's not very accurate.

*shrug* I can't speak to their power numbers but here is their height/weight from left to right, according to ESPN:

6'5" 309
6'2" 303
6'4" 311
6'4" 300
6'7" 300

Here's the Bears with the "weak left side"

6'4" 315 (self reported)
6'3" 306 (combine)
6'4" 310 (ESPN)
6'6" 316 (ESPN)
6'6" 317 (ESPN)

mmmc_35 wrote:Leno gets walked back. He is very good at mirroring, and has good balance. Plus having powerful dudes next to him has kept the gap clean. I have never complained about him because he has had Sitton or Long next to him.

I don't think Long ever played LG... could be wrong.



I'm way on the other side of the argument than you and wab. I see the athleticism inside from Daniels/Whitehair/Long that I think we will murdering teams with inside zone all game long.

RE: Long. I know he's listed at like 6'6 320(ish). But having stood next to him (I'm 6'2), he looks more like 6'4 290. He's got a GIANT noggin, so that may put him at 6'5. I have a picture with him and my buddy who is 6'3 and Long doesn't have much height on him. They were about shoulder to shoulder. In fact, Miller is taller than long, based on them standing side by side talking to each other after a game in the locker room.

I'm on the fence about Long in this offense. I hope he still has that athleticism that made him a pro bowler. He HAS to stay healthy, or this may be his last year as a Bear.

wab wrote:RE: Long. I know he's listed at like 6'6 320(ish). But having stood next to him (I'm 6'2), he looks more like 6'4 290. He's got a GIANT noggin, so that may put him at 6'5. I have a picture with him and my buddy who is 6'3 and Long doesn't have much height on him. They were about shoulder to shoulder. In fact, Miller is taller than long, based on them standing side by side talking to each other after a game in the locker room.

I'm on the fence about Long in this offense. I hope he still has that athleticism that made him a pro bowler. He HAS to stay healthy, or this may be his last year as a Bear.

Kyle Long was measured at the combine at 6'6". I'd trust that measurement. Unless he shrunk.

GO HAWKS!

Whitehair/Daniels/Long(if healthy) is a WHOLE lot of nasty in the middle. All athletic OL that can road grade in the run game. I believe that Daniels should stay at C, and Whitehair can move back to his natural position at G. My excitement comes from seeing what Heistand, arguably the best OL coach in the nation, can build on what Daniels and Whitehair already have. I think everyone needs to look at the OL through fresh eyes with Harry on board. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bears OL gets ranked in the top 5 by mid-season.

Hiestand is the reason that I really don't give a shit who lines up where -- so long as that is their fixed position moving forward. If that means Daniels at OC, great; if that means he plays LG, super.

RING4CHI wrote:Just allow me to get this out of my system:

Just curious, after his rookie season, are you still in the "Don't like the pick" category? Honestly, I loved the pick at the time and I think he's a young pillar on our line for a long time.

DaSuperfan wrote:

RING4CHI wrote:Just allow me to get this out of my system:

Just curious, after his rookie season, are you still in the "Don't like the pick" category? Honestly, I loved the pick at the time and I think he's a young pillar on our line for a long time.

He didn't like it because of Iowa. Had nothing to do with Daniels. Ringer just hates Iowa.

wab wrote:

DaSuperfan wrote:

RING4CHI wrote:Just allow me to get this out of my system:

Just curious, after his rookie season, are you still in the "Don't like the pick" category? Honestly, I loved the pick at the time and I think he's a young pillar on our line for a long time.

He didn't like it because of Iowa. Had nothing to do with Daniels. Ringer just hates Iowa.

Ahhhh okay, so he'll hate him forever lol.