PDA

View Full Version : Interesting article about the OL


swordman
03-26-2008, 08:12 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/ross_tucker/03/26/oline.salaries1/index.html?eref=T1


the thing that make this article actually intersting is that it is written by a former OL Ross tucker that played for the redskins

thoughts?
Do you agree that OL is where the difference between great and average players is the least in comparison to other position? and that they are over paid these days?

neko4
03-26-2008, 08:16 PM
i never really noticed there was such a small difference. to me, its always been the olineman that does the best, for the longest period of time during a game. you cant measure a lineman's sucess in stats though, and thats where things get tricky. but you can usually tell who is good, by the performence of their QB and RB

themaninblack
03-26-2008, 08:26 PM
i think theres a bigger difference than he's giving elite offensive lineman credit for but hes pretty much correct. a professional olineman is expected to be a pretty darn good player and i do believe name recognition plays a huge role in determining their success.

neko4
03-26-2008, 08:31 PM
i think theres a bigger difference than he's giving elite offensive lineman credit for but hes pretty much correct. a professional olineman is expected to be a pretty darn good player and i do believe name recognition plays a huge role in determining their success.
yeah, thats why the same Olineman make the pro bowl year after year, unless one breaks out big time, or others get real old.

themaninblack
03-26-2008, 08:33 PM
It also has a LOT to do with the guys around you.

D-Rod
03-27-2008, 05:20 AM
I disagree. Trying to impose quantitative analysis upon the offensive line is absurd. Moneyball is a baseball concept; in baseball, everything can be measured quantitatively. Measuring O-line purely on the basis of pressures and sacks is ridiculous. Of course, they are a factor in performance. However, there are far more fundamental differences in performance.

An elite lineman might get that extra couple of inches push in the run game than an average lineman, every single play. Every so often, that extra inch is going to make the difference between the RB finding the hole and not finding the hole. A elite lineman might provide an extra half-second of protection each play; every so often, that is going to make the difference between a completion and an incompletion, not between a sack and a non-sack.

It might be possible, with a huge amount of video analysis, to construct an accurate quantitative analysis of lineman. But sacks and pressures don't even come close.

I think that linemen are worth every penny.

eaglesalltheway
03-27-2008, 06:45 AM
It also has a LOT to do with the guys around you.

That is does, if you're a linemen and the guy to the left and right of you can not do his job, it also makes you look like a shmuck, plus if you have successful "skill" players around you you are also going to get some more credit.

bigbluedefense
03-27-2008, 09:09 AM
nothing in the NFL is as simple as it looks. there is a difference between linemen sure, the thing is i think its easier to replenish oline talent than elite skill position talent, thus making FA olinemen a debatable investment.

but saying that average olinemen are not that much different from elite ones is false. everything starts up front, and having a quality line is critical to success.

schemes and quarterbacks also dictate what the oline superficially looks like to the naked eye. a 3 step drop offense will make pass protection look better than it is, a qb who holds the ball too long makes it look worse. theres tons of factors to consider, its not black and white.

also, an oline gets better with improved chemistry more than any other unit. so you don't need PB studs at each position, but great chemistry and above average guys together can make for a solid unit.

its also easier to develop talent at oline than at skill positions. with the oline, you don't necessarily need immediate returns the way you expect from skill position players, so you can develop a late round workout warrior and hope he develops over time. thats harder to do with other positions.

but make no mistake, talent along the offensive and defensive lines is what separates the 8-8 teams from the 12-4 teams. it all starts in the trenches.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
03-27-2008, 02:02 PM
nothing in the NFL is as simple as it looks. there is a difference between linemen sure, the thing is i think its easier to replenish oline talent than elite skill position talent, thus making FA olinemen a debatable investment.


I agree, with the exception of LT. I find, unless you get really lucky, good LTs are very very rare in FA, and the only way to nab them is in the draft. But that is probably because LT is essentially a skill position these days.

Addict
03-27-2008, 03:06 PM
Nice article. I think he's simplifying it a bit, but his views do tend to make sense, plus he's obviously been there, so he knows a hell of a lot better than me (and I think most guys here too).

swordman
04-04-2008, 02:52 PM
the guy who wrote the article made another one about the same theme

I think a lot will disagree with what he says but the knows certainly more than we do

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/ross_tucker/04/02/oline.rankings/index.html?eref=T1

bigbluedefense
04-04-2008, 03:03 PM
I agree, with the exception of LT. I find, unless you get really lucky, good LTs are very very rare in FA, and the only way to nab them is in the draft. But that is probably because LT is essentially a skill position these days.

i agree. LT has become a skill position almost. and teams almost never let a quality LT escape via FA. theyre almost as rare as seeing quality FA quarterbacks.

I still can't believe Brees was on the market and yielded such little interest with the durth of qb talent around the league. We'll never see that again.

Flyboy
04-04-2008, 03:06 PM
I still can't believe Brees was on the market and yielded such little interest with the durth of qb talent around the league. We'll never see that again.

Well, he WAS coming off major surgery on his throwing shoulder so I'm sure teams were very hesitant. Hell, even I was hesitant we when first signed him.

bigbluedefense
04-04-2008, 03:10 PM
Well, he WAS coming off major surgery on his throwing shoulder so I'm sure teams were very hesitant. Hell, even I was hesitant we when first signed him.

i know, but even with that injury, he was still a much better option than many teams already had.

was it 21 million? how much did he get? Brees was never a guy who relied on athleticism anyway, i think the perception of Chad Pennington's demise at the time scared away teams when it shouldnt have.

Flyboy
04-04-2008, 03:20 PM
i know, but even with that injury, he was still a much better option than many teams already had.

was it 21 million? how much did he get? Brees was never a guy who relied on athleticism anyway, i think the perception of Chad Pennington's demise at the time scared away teams when it shouldnt have.

Well, consider this: The Miami Dolphins brought in both Drew Brees & Daunte Culpepper. Brees actually wanted to go to Miami over New Orleans, but he 'failed' their physical because they were too worried about his shoulder and went with Culpepper instead. It was a blessing in disguise for our team, but that's how worried teams were about the injury.

Off the top of my head, Brees signed a 6 yr/$60mil contract. And speaking of Brees and offensive lines, him and Sean Payton really makes our offensive line look a lot better than it actually is.

bigbluedefense
04-04-2008, 03:27 PM
Well, consider this: The Miami Dolphins brought in both Drew Brees & Daunte Culpepper. Brees actually wanted to go to Miami over New Orleans, but he 'failed' their physical because they were too worried about his shoulder and went with Culpepper instead. It was a blessing in disguise for our team, but that's how worried teams were about the injury.

Off the top of my head, Brees signed a 6 yr/$60mil contract. And speaking of Brees and offensive lines, him and Sean Payton really makes our offensive line look a lot better than it actually is.

oh wow, i didn't know he failed their physical. i guess now it makes sense.

I agree, although last year Payton shied away from what worked, and tried more vertical stuff. Thats why the offense struggled so much early on.

DeathbyStat
04-04-2008, 03:27 PM
The steelers whole oline was a mess last year...but Faneca didn't seem to look dominate at any point during the year

YAYareaRB
04-04-2008, 03:31 PM
Pretty much.. You're either dominant or you're not.

Flyboy
04-04-2008, 03:36 PM
oh wow, i didn't know he failed their physical. i guess now it makes sense.

I agree, although last year Payton shied away from what worked, and tried more vertical stuff. Thats why the offense struggled so much early on.

Yeah, Miami's doctors didn't think Brees would bounce back well from the injury and passed on him. He passed our physical fine and the rest is history.

Not too sure I agree about Payton trying to be too vertical. Our offensive line completely sucked in all facets of the game the first four weeks of the season. Period. Brees had no time whatsoever and there were no running lanes no matter who was running the ball. It was all around horrid.

ChezPower4
04-04-2008, 04:40 PM
I really did not like the article very much. He said that the difference between great linemen and average linemen is give or take one or two plays a game. He makes it sound like it's not a big deal but it is every play in football is so important and those one of two can very well be the difference between winning and losing. I would think that someone who played in the NFL would know that.