Where have all the good lines gone?
-
An interesting piece on the dearth of great OL play in the NFL
http://www.nfl.com/labs/sidelines/oline/desktop/offensive-lines.html
It centres on how the cowboys focused on the OL, but addresses the league-wide issue of substandard play.
For those wanting to just skip to the 'rankings' it's here:
Browns are ranked 23rd, being 9th in yards before contact and 6th in yards per carry, but dead last in sacks and sack percentage.
-
You know Chris, I blame some of that on the big money fantasy betting operations. Not all but linemen just aren't sexy picks. People want individual performance as opposed to team play. Draftkings seem to be doing pretty good at putting the I in team.
-
I'm not sure that's got much to do with much - you can be pretty damn sure NFL coaches don't give a flying shit about your fantasy roster, they care about winning and their jobs.
-
Right, but the players care about their fantasy numbers. And linemen just aren't sexy I guess. I myself would have picked all down linemen the last draft. They are the ones that make things click.
-
So you're saying fewer kids want to play OL these days because of the flashier positions? I could see that. That would probably have started maybe 5-10 years back to be showing up now but that's certainly possible. Though, from a purely physical standpoint, it's not really an option for a guy with say Danny Shelton's body type!
-
I don't mean that at all. The FO of most teams just don't seem to put much value on their line. Then they scratch their heads trying to figure out why the backfield sucks.
-
But how does fantasy football impact FO decisions?
-
The article touches on something that I've read a lot elsewhere, suggesting that most teams try to build the roster such that it has a handful of high paid stars and then a bunch of guys on rookie contracts, and this exacerbates the problems. They then have to spend a lot more time teaching their new OL recruit how to play out of a three point stance as they transition from a spread offense.
So, surely, there are a load of JAGs that are largely plug and play, but not elite level - John Greco types, say - that are out of work, falling through the cracks of this approach?
-
So you're saying fewer kids want to play OL these days because of the flashier positions? I could see that. That would probably have started maybe 5-10 years back to be showing up now but that's certainly possible. Though, from a purely physical standpoint, it's not really an option for a guy with say Danny Shelton's body type!
So you're saying fewer kids want to play OL these days because of the flashier positions? I could see that. That would probably have started maybe 5-10 years back to be showing up now but that's certainly possible. Though, from a purely physical standpoint, it's not really an option for a guy with say Danny Shelton's body type!
Certainly body type or size, but also reduced athleticism send youth to the lines... especially the O-line. Foot speed is probably the #1 determining factor. Size can come later.
Case in point... My Jr. year in HS we had a 2-way, Sr. player named Doug Molls. Doug stood at ~6'1 or 2 and played at maybe 200#. He wrestled at 185 for us. Anyway... Doug was our starting FB in our base I-formation and on D was our strong-side OLB. He was by no means slow for a HS player.
Doug got a full ride to play for Purdue and I saw him at a holiday, dual meet 2 years later. He was huge... had to go at least 270. Even at Purdue he was not fast enough to play in space, and was converted to DL, an area many wrestlers have found their way to over the years.
By his Sr., 4th year at Purdue he was their starting NT at closer to 290. Watched him closely in a broadcast vs. Ohio State that year. He could still play... but was so different from the player I saw live and in person five years earlier it was unbelievable.
-
-
Related note - Jonathan Allen was a 185lb receiver in HS.
I smell "tackle eligible" in goal line sets...
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
-
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196
-
-
The piece touches on this but another important facet is that OL in College are being asked to block much more "simply" in most offenses than ever before. It's not that hard to block a guy when the ball is out of a QB's hands in less than 1.5 seconds. These same offenses have much more "simple" running schemes based on speed rather than ground and pound. This describes probably about half the offensive schemes in college right now if not more. Couple this with the fact that OL is one the biggest technique positions in the game and it's becoming more and more of a challenge to have OL who aren't major projects.
-
The piece touches on this but another important facet is that OL in College are being asked to block much more "simply" in most offenses than ever before. It's not that hard to block a guy when the ball is out of a QB's hands in less than 1.5 seconds. These same offenses have much more "simple" running schemes based on speed rather than ground and pound. This describes probably about half the offensive schemes in college right now if not more. Couple this with the fact that OL is one the biggest technique positions in the game and it's becoming more and more of a challenge to have OL who aren't major projects.
Couple this with the fact that OL is one the biggest technique positions in the game and it's becoming more and more of a challenge to have OL who aren't major projects.
And identifying the worthwhile projects from the hopeless is not getting any easier. I'd like your thoughts on the following...
I got into the relatively low athleticism of OL vs other other positions in an earlier discussion. The technique importance you allude to seems to be the other side of that coin. I see it as the way, the only way, an OL can compensate for athletic deficiencies is technique. Not sure how far tech can take a player tho... how much of an athletic deficit it can mask. Probably impossible to quantify, but the cutoff has to be a decent ways north of "can't walk and chew gum at the same time." Our dear departed Schwartz is somewhere north of that cutoff point, but not by a whole lot.
On the other hand we've seen athletic, collegiate OL bust at the next level due to insufficient tech. Need look back no further than Greg Robinson for an example of that. (As the saying goes, "I believe I had that one.") But there's always hope for the gifted since you can teach tech as long as the athlete is capable of learning. Certainly the odds are better than teaching "athleticism."
Of course a superior, OL athlete with great tech trumps all... yeah... I'm thinking of you, Joe... and, unfortunately, you as well, Alex...
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Couple this with the fact that OL is one the biggest technique positions in the game and it's becoming more and more of a challenge to have OL who aren't major projects.
And identifying the worthwhile projects from the hopeless is not getting any easier. I'd like your thoughts on the following...
I got into the relatively low athleticism of OL vs other other positions in an earlier discussion. The technique importance you allude to seems to be the other side of that coin. I see it as the way, the only way, an OL can compensate for athletic deficiencies is technique. Not sure how far tech can take a player tho... how much of an athletic deficit it can mask. Probably impossible to quantify, but the cutoff has to be a decent ways north of "can't walk and chew gum at the same time." Our dear departed Schwartz is somewhere north of that cutoff point, but not by a whole lot.
On the other hand we've seen athletic, collegiate OL bust at the next level due to insufficient tech. Need look back no further than Greg Robinson for an example of that. (As the saying goes, "I believe I had that one.") But there's always hope for the gifted since you can teach tech as long as the athlete is capable of learning. Certainly the odds are better than teaching "athleticism."
Of course a superior, OL athlete with great tech trumps all... yeah... I'm thinking of you, Joe... and, unfortunately, you as well, Alex...
I'd like your thoughts on the following... GREAT!!
I got into the relatively low athleticism of OL vs other other positions in an earlier discussion. The technique importance you allude to seems to be the other side of that coin. I see it as the way, the only way, an OL can compensate for athletic deficiencies is technique. Not sure how far tech can take a player tho... how much of an athletic deficit it can mask. Probably impossible to quantify, but the cutoff has to be a decent ways north of "can't walk and chew gum at the same time. OL athlete with great tech trumps all...
1.The math just don't add up but I have watched the Bears OL & terrible don't add up to this #11 ranking? 2.Even when Manhell was around & now turning page to RG3. I have always believed we need a more athletic mobile OL such as #12 Seattle? Wilson makes it look easy with road-craters that can lead outside with a bunch no names just high motor athletes..#3.We our ranked #23..a playoff team like Lions rank#26 & Zona #27? your thoughts
-
I'd like your thoughts on the following... GREAT!!
I got into the relatively low athleticism of OL vs other other positions in an earlier discussion. The technique importance you allude to seems to be the other side of that coin. I see it as the way, the only way, an OL can compensate for athletic deficiencies is technique. Not sure how far tech can take a player tho... how much of an athletic deficit it can mask. Probably impossible to quantify, but the cutoff has to be a decent ways north of "can't walk and chew gum at the same time. OL athlete with great tech trumps all...
1.The math just don't add up but I have watched the Bears OL & terrible don't add up to this #11 ranking? 2.Even when Manhell was around & now turning page to RG3. I have always believed we need a more athletic mobile OL such as #12 Seattle? Wilson makes it look easy with road-craters that can lead outside with a bunch no names just high motor athletes..#3.We our ranked #23..a playoff team like Lions rank#26 & Zona #27? your thoughts
your thoughts
That the sum of our OL parts are greater than our OL whole is very understandable to my mind... especially given one super-weak link and a shared inconsistency born out of individual inexperience with a lack of unit continuity on top...
Can't say for sure that it apples this year, but last season when I graded it was the case that we had very few plays when at least one individual breakdown did not occur. And often it often was Cam, it was not always him. Others took turns. Add that our RT is now basically getting OJT and there it is...
-
Couple this with the fact that OL is one the biggest technique positions in the game and it's becoming more and more of a challenge to have OL who aren't major projects.
And identifying the worthwhile projects from the hopeless is not getting any easier. I'd like your thoughts on the following...
I got into the relatively low athleticism of OL vs other other positions in an earlier discussion. The technique importance you allude to seems to be the other side of that coin. I see it as the way, the only way, an OL can compensate for athletic deficiencies is technique. Not sure how far tech can take a player tho... how much of an athletic deficit it can mask. Probably impossible to quantify, but the cutoff has to be a decent ways north of "can't walk and chew gum at the same time." Our dear departed Schwartz is somewhere north of that cutoff point, but not by a whole lot.
On the other hand we've seen athletic, collegiate OL bust at the next level due to insufficient tech. Need look back no further than Greg Robinson for an example of that. (As the saying goes, "I believe I had that one.") But there's always hope for the gifted since you can teach tech as long as the athlete is capable of learning. Certainly the odds are better than teaching "athleticism."
Of course a superior, OL athlete with great tech trumps all... yeah... I'm thinking of you, Joe... and, unfortunately, you as well, Alex...
And identifying the worthwhile projects from the hopeless is not getting any easier. I'd like your thoughts on the following...
I got into the relatively low athleticism of OL vs other other positions in an earlier discussion. The technique importance you allude to seems to be the other side of that coin. I see it as the way, the only way, an OL can compensate for athletic deficiencies is technique. Not sure how far tech can take a player tho... how much of an athletic deficit it can mask. Probably impossible to quantify, but the cutoff has to be a decent ways north of "can't walk and chew gum at the same time." Our dear departed Schwartz is somewhere north of that cutoff point, but not by a whole lot.
On the other hand we've seen athletic, collegiate OL bust at the next level due to insufficient tech. Need look back no further than Greg Robinson for an example of that. (As the saying goes, "I believe I had that one.") But there's always hope for the gifted since you can teach tech as long as the athlete is capable of learning. Certainly the odds are better than teaching "athleticism."
Of course a superior, OL athlete with great tech trumps all... yeah... I'm thinking of you, Joe... and, unfortunately, you as well, Alex...
So of course not having as keen of an eye as you do, I can only moreso provide personal opinion and player perspectives.
1. I played center 4 years in high school at a weight of MAYBE 200 lbs (seriously). Now, I fancied myself a pretty good athlete (I played DE and long snapper as well) but there's no way on God's green Earth I had a chance against the NC mountain boys we played. As such, I took the time to learn technique as much as possible. From this perspective, albeit MUCH different, technique beat being the better athletic a good bit of the time. Sometimes though there was jack shit I could do, just like guys nowadays with physical limitations.
2. Many former OL guys are on the sports talks shows and they all basically say the same thing about declining OL play lately. They break it down to what I noted and the fact that much less practice time results in much less technique work.
With that in mind, I'd definitely argue that technique is more of an issue compared to athleticism. I suppose it may be fair to say the OL don't have to be as physically gifted as other positions, but making a QB not be on his ass half the time requires technique which these guys are horribly lacking.
-
I've often wondered why coaches don't *strongly suggest* that a guy like Joe Thomas take all his OL buddies away to OL camp for a couple of months in the offseason, with a few coaches. Limitations in practise time only affect the club's coaching staff, right? So they could have a list of 'approved coaches' who they know won't teach the 'wrong' thing.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login