PDA

View Full Version : Are LT's becoming overvalued?


Clarkw267
03-29-2010, 07:43 PM
Every year it seems as though everyone is on the search for a "Franchise LT", and basically just throw the moniker on the highest rated guy.

Last year it was Jason Smith
The year before it was Jake Long
2007 it was Joe Thomas

Now don't get me wrong. I'm a Michigan fan, and think that Long and Thomas are both outstanding players. I think Smith could potentially be a good pro.

However, I just don't think the LT position is as important as some like to think. I also think this overinflated sense of value causes guys to get drafted much higher than they should (Smith, Chris Williams.. etc)

Take the Saints and Colts for instance. They each have relatively highly drafted players at LT to start the season (Brown and Ugoh). Brown gets hurt, and Ugoh gets benched. And the teams go on and don't miss a beat with Bushrod and Charlie Johnson.

Personally, I think the chemistry in the OL, and having a QB with solid pocket awareness is a ton more important than having a stud at LT.

It's like the old saying "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts"

phlysac
03-29-2010, 07:48 PM
Take the Saints and Colts for instance. They each have relatively highly drafted players at LT to start the season (Brown and Ugoh). Brown gets hurt, and Ugoh gets benched. And the teams go on and don't miss a beat with Bushrod and Charlie Johnson.

Although true, your really have to consider the ability of the QB's in your example. Elite QBs make any offensive line appear better than they are. If you don't have an elite QB you need great protection.

Hurricanes25
03-29-2010, 07:50 PM
I don't think they're overvalued at all. You need someone to protect your Franchise QB.

Bengals78
03-29-2010, 07:53 PM
Ask David Carr....

J-Mike88
03-29-2010, 07:54 PM
I don't think they're overvalued at all. You need someone to protect your Franchise QB.
Ditto.
You want your Rodgers and Mannings and Brees and Farvrvreves to last the season, unlike the Sam Bradfords and Alex Smiths and Tom Brady's (hello Sebastien Vollmer) & your Don McNabbs.
That's why the Eagles totally overpaid for the LT Peters last year. They wanted to try and protect #5's blind side.

That's why the Packers just had to pay big bucks for Chad Clifton and Mark Tauscher. You all saw what happened to Rodgers the first half of the year last year when stiffs were at LT and/or RT.

Splat
03-29-2010, 07:55 PM
The second most important position on O after QB.

LonghornsLegend
03-29-2010, 07:56 PM
Ummm, QB is the most important position on the field, why wouldn't you want an elite guy to protect his back side? LT's are never overvalued, there aren't many positions more important.


You also named the 2 best QB's in the league, who have lightning quick releases and make due no matter what, but there is no reason to think you shouldn't invest alot of money into protecting your QB.

Bengals78
03-29-2010, 07:57 PM
The second most important position on O after QB.

id say
1. QB
2a. LT
2c. C

the center is the guy communicating the blitzes, helping with audibles, and now more than ever has to block those behemoth NT

RealityCheck
03-29-2010, 08:01 PM
Yeah, specially when there's a book and movie all about the importance of that position.

Clarkw267
03-29-2010, 08:01 PM
I don't think they're overvalued at all. You need someone to protect your Franchise QB.

Such as a Jermon Bushrod, Charlie Johnson, Dave Diehl, Matt Light, Max Starks, and Mike Gandy?

RealityCheck
03-29-2010, 08:06 PM
Such as a Jermon Bushrod, Charlie Johnson, Dave Diehl, Matt Light, Max Starks, and Mike Gandy?
Wait wait wait.

Matt Light was a great tackle in his prime. Same with Diehl.

Saints-Tigers
03-29-2010, 08:08 PM
It really is overrated. If you have a strong interior line, you can send help to a LT now and then, and as long as your QB has plenty of room to step up in the pocket, you can lock up the inside and push the passrusher deep. You need a franchise LT when your QB can't step up and get rid of the ball quickly, or if you need to take super deep drops on every possession.

Hurricanes25
03-29-2010, 08:08 PM
Such as a Jermon Bushrod, Charlie Johnson, Dave Diehl, Matt Light, Max Starks, and Mike Gandy?

As RC said, Light and Diehl were great in their primes. Also, Starks ain't that bad. Big Ben just holds the ball way too long.

Clarkw267
03-29-2010, 08:08 PM
Ditto.
You want your Rodgers and Mannings and Brees and Farvrvreves to last the season, unlike the Sam Bradfords and Alex Smiths and Tom Brady's (hello Sebastien Vollmer) & your Don McNabbs.
That's why the Eagles totally overpaid for the LT Peters last year. They wanted to try and protect #5's blind side.

That's why the Packers just had to pay big bucks for Chad Clifton and Mark Tauscher. You all saw what happened to Rodgers the first half of the year last year when stiffs were at LT and/or RT.

Well.. one guy you brought up. Sam Bradford. He was injured while being sacked on a zone blitz, with who many are considering a potential "franchise LT" Trent Williams protecting him.

Thumper
03-29-2010, 08:10 PM
Such as a Jermon Bushrod, Charlie Johnson, Dave Diehl, Matt Light, Max Starks, and Mike Gandy?

Okay, Diehl is likely moving back to LG because Eli was abused this past season, Big Ben is always nicked up so Starks is irrelevant in this conversation and Gandy is probably one of the reasons Warner retired, he took an absolute beating against New Orleans. Bushrod is the exception to the rule, Johnson is mediocre and is the reason why the Colts likely go LT in the first round. And Matt Light was selected fairly early, he was a second round pick.

Let me know how things are working out in Detroit, Chicago, Washington, Chiefs, Raiders and Seahawks when you see they don't have a solid LT.

Clarkw267
03-29-2010, 08:11 PM
As RC said, Light and Diehl were great in their primes. Also, Starks ain't that bad. Big Ben just holds the ball way too long.

Diehl is 29 years old. And is also a converted Guard.

Also.. all 3 of those guys were not 1st round picks.

STsACE
03-29-2010, 08:12 PM
Ask David Carr....

Tim Couch would like some clarification as well to your theory.

Bengals78
03-29-2010, 08:13 PM
Diehl is 29 years old. And is also a converted Guard.

Also.. all 3 of those guys were not 1st round picks.

so? not being a first round pick and not being a collegiate tackle does not diminish that they were GREAT tackles and that their respective teams were a lot better when they were in their primes!

So therefore Tom Brady, Bart Starr, Warren Moon, Joe Namath, Johnny Unitis (was cut from his first team) Dan Fouts and Roger Staubach are not hall of famers?

Saints-Tigers
03-29-2010, 08:15 PM
Let me know how things are working out in Detroit, Chicago, Washington, Chiefs, Raiders and Seahawks when you see they don't have a solid LT.


You mean 6 teams whose entire O-lines are ****?

ironman4579
03-29-2010, 08:16 PM
Such as a Jermon Bushrod, Charlie Johnson, Dave Diehl, Matt Light, Max Starks, and Mike Gandy?

Starks is a horrible example. Ben is always nicked up, and if he wasn't such a great scrambler and so big, he'd be getting sacked far more.

JFLO
03-29-2010, 08:17 PM
Teams definitely reach for who they think is a franchise LT. I don't think you can overvalue a player like Thomas, Long, Okung, Ferguson or Monroe because they had/have all the talent in the world. However, players like Levi Brown, Gosder Cherilus and Jeff Otah are different. Otah is sort of different because I feel the Panthers drafted him purely as a RT, but with players like Brown and Gherilus, they were drafted as a LT.

Everyone and their mother knew that Brown and Cherilus would struggle protecting the blindside.

Do teams overvalue left tackles? No.

Do teams reach for left tackles? God yes.

Thumper
03-29-2010, 08:17 PM
Ask fans how valuable Orlando Pace, Walter Jones, Tra Thomas, Jonathan Odgen and Willie Roaf were to their teams and you will see why left tackles are so valuable. They protect the face of the franchise and allow the QB enough time to look down field to find the targets. And when you look at the most successful teams in the NFL you'll find one common thread, they've got a good line. You build from the inside out, a good offensive line can make a decent back look great, a good QB look fantastic, give receivers more time to get open and they lead to more scoring etc. etc. etc. You build from the inside out.

Clarkw267
03-29-2010, 08:19 PM
Okay, Diehl is likely moving back to LG because Eli was abused this past season, Big Ben is always nicked up so Starks is irrelevant in this conversation and Gandy is probably one of the reasons Warner retired, he took an absolute beating against New Orleans. Bushrod is the exception to the rule, Johnson is mediocre and is the reason why the Colts likely go LT in the first round. And Matt Light was selected fairly early, he was a second round pick.

Let me know how things are working out in Detroit, Chicago, Washington, Chiefs, Raiders and Seahawks when you see they don't have a solid LT.

Haha.. Big Ben is always nicked up, so that's Starks fault, and noone else's.

Also Warner got lit up during an interception return.

I bet the Colts address their interior OL first.

And Light was a 2nd round pick.. which is fairly early, but it's not top 10. Same goes for Marcus McNeil.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
03-29-2010, 08:20 PM
Maybe. You're right, there's at least one "franchise LT" every single year now. And sometimes, quite a few go in the first two rounds. It's possible that, because of the added importance on LT, more people are playing football to fill that role on the field. With that happening, the market might flood and drive the value of the LT down.

Clarkw267
03-29-2010, 08:21 PM
Ask fans how valuable Orlando Pace, Walter Jones, Tra Thomas, Jonathan Odgen and Willie Roaf were to their teams and you will see why left tackles are so valuable. They protect the face of the franchise and allow the QB enough time to look down field to find the targets. And when you look at the most successful teams in the NFL you'll find one common thread, they've got a good line. You build from the inside out, a good offensive line can make a decent back look great, a good QB look fantastic, give receivers more time to get open and they lead to more scoring etc. etc. etc. You build from the inside out.

You do build from the inside out. Which is why if you have a good interior OL , it can do wonders for the rest of your team.

Bengals78
03-29-2010, 08:23 PM
You do build from the inside out. Which is why if you have a good interior OL , it can do wonders for the rest of your team.

Yes but you can have Larry Allen - Kevin Mawae - Alan Faneca as your interior line but they dont block the Dwight Freeny's, the James Harrison's the DeMarcus Ware's of the NFL and they will eat your QB alive.

Clarkw267
03-29-2010, 08:26 PM
Did some of you forget to take your ***** today?

I asked if they were overvalued. I didn't state that LT is a worthless position. And IMO they are becoming overvalued as you see more and more teams reach on guys in the 1st round, that probably have no business being picked there.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
03-29-2010, 08:27 PM
Yes but you can have Larry Allen - Kevin Mawae - Alan Faneca as your interior line but they dont block the Dwight Freeny's, the James Harrison's the DeMarcus Ware's of the NFL and they will eat your QB alive.

Agreed. If anything, it's getting to the point where the difference in value between LT and RT is shrinking. Really, you need an LT playing LT, and another one playing RT. There are too many teams with multiple pass rushers these days for you to put the weak spot of your line there. Like look at the Colts, the Steelers and the Cowboys(the teams you mentioned). You can block Freeney, but what about Mathis? You can block Harrison, but what about Woodley? You can block Ware, but what about Spencer? The defenses of today are no longer built around one dominant pass rusher. The best ones have two, and the offenses need to counter that.

Clarkw267
03-29-2010, 08:28 PM
Yes but you can have Larry Allen - Kevin Mawae - Alan Faneca as your interior line but they dont block the Dwight Freeny's, the James Harrison's the DeMarcus Ware's of the NFL and they will eat your QB alive.

Actually, they kind of do block those guys. By not having to double team as often on the interior. You have 5 guys to block 4. Meaning you can have a Guard slide out to help on a edge rusher.

Splat
03-29-2010, 08:32 PM
Trent Green put up 4000+ yards in three straight seasons with no name WR's the main reason being...

http://i39.tinypic.com/2nq7m.jpg

JFLO
03-29-2010, 08:33 PM
I think people have to look at the financial aspect of this argument as well.

This is the sole reason as to why I think Kansas City will take Okung/Bulaga over Berry/Bryant/McClain/whoever.

A team isn't going to take Eric Berry at #5 because he definitely isn't worth the money. You can find a great S/WR/ILB in rounds 2-4.

However, a team isn't going to find (rarely) a franchise LT in the 5th round, it just doesn't happen.

Clarkw267
03-29-2010, 08:39 PM
I think people have to look at the financial aspect of this argument as well.

This is the sole reason as to why I think Kansas City will take Okung/Bulaga over Berry/Bryant/McClain/whoever.

A team isn't going to take Eric Berry at #5 because he definitely isn't worth the money. You can find a great S/WR/ILB in rounds 2-4.

However, a team isn't going to find (rarely) a franchise LT in the 5th round, it just doesn't happen.

That's the thing though. What if Bulaga and Okung aren't franchise LTs?
(I actually like Okung, and think he can be good, Bulaga I'm not sold on at all)

Would you rather pay guys like Reed or Polamalu (dynamic playmakers from the Safety spot) , or Levi Brown or Joe Staley (Solid yet unspectacular OTs)

LonghornsLegend
03-29-2010, 08:55 PM
That's the thing though. What if Bulaga and Okung aren't franchise LTs?

What if everybody if the draft is a bust?? What if the guys they take instead of them are bust and the LT's end up being pro bowlers? It's still a highly important position, more so then something like Safety, LB, RB, WR etc.


More important meaning you'd more likely like to spend a high pick and pay premium money to a guy at that position vs one of the other ones.

Paranoidmoonduck
03-29-2010, 09:02 PM
I think there's two ways to ask this question...

(1) Are left tackles overvalued versus the aggregate value of all other positions (or let's say all other positions besides for the other two highest paid positions: DT and QB)?

or

(2) Are left tackles overvalued versus their counterparts on the right or against all their fellow offensive linemen?

I think the answer to the first one is a hesitant no and to the second one, a firm yes.

DeepThreat
03-29-2010, 09:04 PM
I think left tackle is the 2nd most important position on a team. However, if the Lions go Okung, I think the argument can be made that it has become overvalued. I am all for taking left tackles, but when you have a player like Suh/McCoy you don't take someone like Okung ahead of him.

Clarkw267
03-29-2010, 09:06 PM
What if everybody if the draft is a bust?? What if the guys they take instead of them are bust and the LT's end up being pro bowlers? It's still a highly important position, more so then something like Safety, LB, RB, WR etc.


More important meaning you'd more likely like to spend a high pick and pay premium money to a guy at that position vs one of the other ones.

This is not what I'm saying.

Guys like Bulaga, Trent Williams, Anthony Davis.. etc. are being pushed up draft boards and big boards due to perceived positional value. I don't think any of those guys are among the top 10 football players in this draft. Yet all 3 could be drafted there. While a guy like Berry is about as clean of a prospect as you can find. He is a game changer from the Safety position and his floor is exceptionally high.

Would you rather pay the money to a OT that is more of a risk, but plays the more "valuable" position. Or do you take the better talent in Berry?

Me , I'd take Berry over the Bulagas, Williams', and Davis' of the draft.

Clarkw267
03-29-2010, 09:09 PM
I think there's two ways to ask this question...

(1) Are left tackles overvalued versus the aggregate value of all other positions (or let's say all other positions besides for the other two highest paid positions: DT and QB)?

or

(2) Are left tackles overvalued versus their counterparts on the right or against all their fellow offensive linemen?

I think the answer to the first one is a hesitant no and to the second one, a firm yes.

Very well stated.

Paranoidmoonduck
03-29-2010, 09:10 PM
Me , I'd take Berry over the Bulagas, Williams', and Davis' of the draft.

And you'd feel this way no matter team you're theoretically drafting for?

Clarkw267
03-29-2010, 09:15 PM
And you'd feel this way no matter team you're theoretically drafting for?

It would take a rare case for me to deviate from that. I'll take an elite talent who is a game changer in the secondary over a guy who is probably a mid to late 1st round talent that profiles into being a solid OT.

brat316
03-29-2010, 09:15 PM
This is a different era now, we are in the passing era now. You need two very good tackles in order to drop back and have time for those 5 and 7 step drops. And at the same time the defense is sending pass rushers from both sides. Where in years past your best rusher would come from the Qb's blindside.

Paranoidmoonduck
03-29-2010, 09:20 PM
It would take a rare case for me to deviate from that. I'll take an elite talent who is a game changer in the secondary over a guy who is probably a mid to late 1st round talent that profiles into being a solid OT.

Even if the defensive scheme being run doesn't really call for an elite safety and getting someone solid at offensive tackle is a major hole on offense?

I'm just asking, because I find it pretty shocking that someone would say that one player should absolutely be rated higher on every single team's big board.

Clarkw267
03-29-2010, 09:28 PM
Even if the defensive scheme being run doesn't really call for an elite safety and getting someone solid at offensive tackle is a major hole on offense?

I'm just asking, because I find it pretty shocking that someone would say that one player should absolutely be rated higher on every single team's big board.

Yeah. If it were relatively close in terms of talent, I might give a different answer.

However, in this case I don't see that, and just feel Berry is a superior football player. Even in a defense that doesn't "require" an elite safety, having one gives you the freedom to do a lot of different things. It really became more evident to me when the Steelers struggled so mightily without Polumalu. They were a completely different team on D without the guy.

batsandgats
03-29-2010, 09:45 PM
Read Blindsided, does a statistical breakdown of how the left tackle position is overrated. Its no more important than the other positions on the line.

The book and movie Blindside makes the left tackle position seem like it is more valuable than the other line positions. Maybe if there were a player of Lawrence Taylor's caliber in the league right now, but no one is at his level. Many great rushers but none on his level.

Guys like Brees, he does fine with pressure from the outside, but collapse the middle and he does horrible, see the Bills game where they got pressure up the middle and he did horrible, Brees couldn't step up in the pocket, had him running backwards he had like 170 yards passing

You need to build the line from the inside first

Hurricanes25
03-29-2010, 09:48 PM
Read Blindsided, does a statistical breakdown of how the left tackle position is overrated. Its no more important than the other positions on the line.
The book and movie Blindside makes the left tackle position seem like it is more valuable than the other line positions. Maybe if there were a player of Lawrence Taylor's caliber in the league right now, but no one is even close to his level.

Guys like Brees, he does fine with pressure from the outside, but collapse the middle and he does horrible, see the Bills game where they got pressure up the middle and he did horrible, Brees couldn't step up in the pocket, had him running backwards he had like 170 yards passing

So it's saying that a RG is as important as a LT? That's crazy.

wogitalia
03-29-2010, 09:50 PM
I think you are both right and wrong.

You are wrong in the reason behind the overvaluing of LTs. It isn't that they are unimportant. They are just not as overly important compared to the other line positions as their draft value dictates.

I think LT has become overrated in importance to protecting a QB, with the advent of zone blitzing and the 3-4 defenses have become more capable of attacking whoever the weakest lineman is. This has meant that teams with good solid lines that work well together will look better. LT is still just as important as it ever was but the other 4 spots have improved their importance greatly.

Centers now have to deal with NT and diagnose complex blitz schemes as well as blocking athletic pass rushers above and beyond the tackles of the past they dealt with.

Guards have to work with the center on noses as well as pickup complex stunt and blitz packages. Something that all the top teams had last year was solid guard and center play at the very least, most of the top teams best linemen were either centers or guards last year.

All that said, LT is still the most important and is valued as such, I just think that the time when a center or guard was a reach in the first has passed and they are now worthy of those picks. Just my opinion though and I don't think the reality of the perception of those positions is going to change quickly. Teams have good reasons to hold down the value of those positions.

FrankGore
03-29-2010, 09:58 PM
As a guy who watched my team's entire offense fall prey to a crappy RIGHT tackle for a majority of the season, I certainly don't think you can overvalue the left side, and now, the right side is becoming almost as important with pass rushers coming from all angles and the league becoming pass-heavy.

BaLLiN
03-29-2010, 10:00 PM
Okay, Diehl is likely moving back to LG because Eli was abused this past season, Big Ben is always nicked up so Starks is irrelevant in this conversation and Gandy is probably one of the reasons Warner retired, he took an absolute beating against New Orleans. Bushrod is the exception to the rule, Johnson is mediocre and is the reason why the Colts likely go LT in the first round. And Matt Light was selected fairly early, he was a second round pick.

Let me know how things are working out in Detroit, Chicago, Washington, Chiefs, Raiders and Seahawks when you see they don't have a solid LT.

Woah Woah Woah, there was no talk about Diehl moving back to LG. That was last offseason, Diehl really has been doing a better job, its not easy to make a transition like that. He is a pro bowl guard but not anywhere near a pro bowl tackle. And If you think that Beatty is the reason that he'll move inside, thats likely not happening this season, the giants have said things about putting Beatty on the right side which is beyond me....

EDIT: the reason why giants fans feel its possible to go OT early is RT, Beatty is a gifted tackle who has very good footwork but poor hand technique and upper body strength.

prock
03-29-2010, 10:04 PM
That's the thing though. What if Bulaga and Okung aren't franchise LTs?
(I actually like Okung, and think he can be good, Bulaga I'm not sold on at all)

Would you rather pay guys like Reed or Polamalu (dynamic playmakers from the Safety spot) , or Levi Brown or Joe Staley (Solid yet unspectacular OTs)

This is a ******** argument. What if Berry turns out to be a Reggie Nelson? No one is a sure thing. What if he gets hurt? If you are going to base your argument on "what ifs", then don't argue at all.

Left tackle is not overrated at all. They may be reached for sometimes because the position is so valuable, but there is no way that it is overrated. I don't even get why this is being argued. I agree that they are sometimes valued too much over the rest of the line, but they are still the most important position on the line.

Clarkw267
03-29-2010, 10:14 PM
This is a ******** argument. What if Berry turns out to be a Reggie Nelson? No one is a sure thing. What if he gets hurt? If you are going to base your argument on "what ifs", then don't argue at all.

Left tackle is not overrated at all. They may be reached for sometimes because the position is so valuable, but there is no way that it is overrated. I don't even get why this is being argued. I agree that they are sometimes valued too much over the rest of the line, but they are still the most important position on the line.

Way to skim, and not read the whole thread. If you had, you would see the post where I clarified this.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
03-29-2010, 10:37 PM
So it's saying that a RG is as important as a LT? That's crazy.

Yeah the hierarchy is a pretty simple OT>OC>OG. It bares right out in the draft. The best athletes play the tackle positions, the smart guys play C, and you can really plug in anyone to play OG and coach them to do it effectively. Failed tackles, failed centers, occasionally there is a truly dominant guard, like a Larry Allen type, but for the most part, guards are interchangeable. Offensive line is probably the most coachable position, but you can't teach the quick feet of a tackle, or fully teach the analytical ability of a center. But you can teach a guard.

Rosebud
03-29-2010, 11:32 PM
Okay, Diehl is likely moving back to LG because Eli was abused this past season, Big Ben is always nicked up so Starks is irrelevant in this conversation and Gandy is probably one of the reasons Warner retired, he took an absolute beating against New Orleans. Bushrod is the exception to the rule, Johnson is mediocre and is the reason why the Colts likely go LT in the first round. And Matt Light was selected fairly early, he was a second round pick.

Let me know how things are working out in Detroit, Chicago, Washington, Chiefs, Raiders and Seahawks when you see they don't have a solid LT.

If Diehl moves to LG this year it'll be because last year's second round pick William Beatty is ready and because our interior OL got old quick, O'hara's washed up and Seubert's getting close. Add to that that while diehl is susceptible to speed rushers at LT, he's still a great run blocker and an all-pro caliber LG. Granted eli has made our OL look better than it is like last season where he took less sacks than Donovan McNabb did in two less games despite throwing a good 50 more passes.

wogitalia
03-29-2010, 11:52 PM
Granted eli has made our OL look better than it is like last season where he took less sacks than Donovan McNabb did in two less games despite throwing a good 50 more passes.

Probably not that fair a comparison, McNabb had a very ordinary line to work with. Minny is probably a better comparison, both have had solid interiors that aged a bit in the last year, previously good run games and tackles that struggle with speed, I say that with no idea who got sacked more but I think the situations are comparable.

Rosebud
03-30-2010, 12:02 AM
Probably not that fair a comparison, McNabb had a very ordinary line to work with. Minny is probably a better comparison, both have had solid interiors that aged a bit in the last year, previously good run games and tackles that struggle with speed, I say that with no idea who got sacked more but I think the situations are comparable.

I dunno, our line really fell apart in the middle as Snee was the only guy we could depend on. And philly had a talented line that supposedly featured an elite LT and had a center that wasn't washed up so they're line was in better shape than ours was last year. **** go bad for us, real bad. That's why we had to give up on the running game and let Eli make everyone else look better by slinging it all over the field.

Thumper
03-30-2010, 12:03 AM
If Diehl moves to LG this year it'll be because last year's second round pick William Beatty is ready and because our interior OL got old quick, O'hara's washed up and Seubert's getting close. Add to that that while diehl is susceptible to speed rushers at LT, he's still a great run blocker and an all-pro caliber LG. Granted eli has made our OL look better than it is like last season where he took less sacks than Donovan McNabb did in two less games despite throwing a good 50 more passes.

Yeah but the difference is the Giants offensive line got old quick, the Eagles line was just raped by injuries, Todd Herramens missed 5 games, Jason Peters missed 2 games, Jamaal Jackson missed 1.5, Stacy Andrews never recovered from his ACL injury completely, Shawn Andrews missed the entire season. Basically that line was running on its reserves by the middle of the season, there was actually a point against the Raiders and Cowboys where 4 starters were missing.

How about this, the Eagles QBs were hit 67 times and the Giants QBs were hit 74 times. Eagles Qbs were sacked 38 times and Giants QBs were sacked 32 times. So the Giants QBs were hit one more time than the Eagles. The Eagles also passed more than the Giants did. Also if you look at Footballoutsider's offensive line statistics you will see that the Eagles offensive line was markedly better than the Giant's offensive line at run blocking, this is also shown by NFL.com when they point out that the Eagles runners averaged 4.3 yards per carry and the Giants averaged 4.1 (FO outlines a larger difference).

Just defending my Eagles line, I'd also like to point out the Giants line had worked together for years but the Eagles line had 2.5 new starters (Stacy Andrews counts as .5) and linemen were constantly moving around due to injury (Herramens play LG, LT & RT, Nick Cole play LG, RG, C, Stacy Andrews played LG and RG, Max Jean-Gilles played LG and RG).

The Eagles offensive line wasn't outstanding or anywhere near what the pre-season hype would've had them at, but they were certainly better than the Giants offensive line and that is with injuries and new players.

Raider_fan_Canada
03-30-2010, 12:03 AM
I think it depends on your team. You can always hide a bad player here and there, as long as its not the QB, if you have a good team.

Both Colts and Saints have QBs that are masters of the quick release and manage to keep themselves clean. For teams drafting high in the first round they usualy dont have a solid QB situation. If a good one isnt available I guess a good building block to acquire is a top LT prospect. That player will help your current and future QBs, help you run the ball to get your offense back on track. They are also safer picks then other positions because they have up to 5 positions where to find a home in the NFL.

Rosebud
03-30-2010, 12:09 AM
Yeah but the difference is the Giants offensive line got old quick, the Eagles line was just raped by injuries, Todd Herramens missed 5 games, Jason Peters missed 2 games, Jamaal Jackson missed 1.5, Stacy Andrews never recovered from his ACL injury completely, Shawn Andrews missed the entire season. Basically that line was running on its reserves by the middle of the season, there was actually a point against the Raiders and Cowboys where 4 starters were missing.

How about this, the Eagles QBs were hit 67 times and the Giants QBs were hit 74 times. Eagles Qbs were sacked 38 times and Giants QBs were sacked 32 times. So the Giants QBs were hit one more time than the Eagles. The Eagles also passed more than the Giants did. Also if you look at Footballoutsider's offensive line statistics you will see that the Eagles offensive line was markedly better than the Giant's offensive line at run blocking, this is also shown by NFL.com when they point out that the Eagles runners averaged 4.3 yards per carry and the Giants averaged 4.1 (FO outlines a larger difference).

Just defending my Eagles line, I'd also like to point out the Giants line had worked together for years but the Eagles line had 2.5 new starters (Stacy Andrews counts as .5) and linemen were constantly moving around due to injury (Herramens play LG, LT & RT, Nick Cole play LG, RG, C, Stacy Andrews played LG and RG, Max Jean-Gilles played LG and RG).

The Eagles offensive line wasn't outstanding or anywhere near what the pre-season hype would've had them at, but they were certainly better than the Giants offensive line and that is with injuries and new players.

Agreed?...That's kinda my point, our OL fell apart around Diehl and Snee so to fix that we're moving Diehl inside, where he was all-pro quality, to let Beatty break into the starting lineup and hopefully drafting a Center.

Saints-Tigers
03-30-2010, 12:13 AM
I think the LT is overrated only in comparison to other linemen. You can have a dominant line without a dominant LT... The other positions are more important than given credit for.

Thumper
03-30-2010, 12:51 AM
Agreed?...That's kinda my point, our OL fell apart around Diehl and Snee so to fix that we're moving Diehl inside, where he was all-pro quality, to let Beatty break into the starting lineup and hopefully drafting a Center.

I interpreted your post as "Yeah things got bad for the Giants but the Eagles line was worse." Oh well... I guess I ended up proving your intended point.

Rosebud
03-30-2010, 01:03 AM
I interpreted your post as "Yeah things got bad for the Giants but the Eagles line was worse." Oh well... I guess I ended up proving your intended point.

Nah, my point was our OL went to **** but Eli, despite his two ****** up feet, was able to make them still look decent. The only reason the Eagles came up was that you said Eli got abused and I was pointing out that he really didn't get pummeled when you compare him to other guys who threw as many passes.

killxswitch
03-30-2010, 09:09 AM
I think it's a sliding scale of sorts. If you have a solid set of OTs you can get away with plug-and-play guards and just an OK center. If you have mediocre OTs the need for quality at the other OL positions increases.

The opposing defense's best pass rusher will usually be coming from the weak side, so it makes sense that the LT should be the best pass protector, the best athlete, etc. But I do think teams are reaching more and more on the position.

bearfan
03-30-2010, 10:49 AM
Too lazy to see if this has been mentioned, but another reason LTs are becoming more valuable is the switch from run oriented offenses to pass oriented offenses. The NFL is becoming a pass happy league and with that the QB has more chances to get hit and injured. IMO they were important before, but now they are more important than ever.

bitonti
03-30-2010, 02:32 PM
Well.. one guy you brought up. Sam Bradford. He was injured while being sacked on a zone blitz, with who many are considering a potential "franchise LT" Trent Williams protecting him.

theres an easy explanation for this

trent williams is overrated.