O-lines not vital to success in today's NFL

[TJV]

Here’s another great article by Bob McGinn.

 

[Kitten]

Try telling the QB that. Tell that to Big Ben and Vick.

 

[ThePerfectBeard]

Wow seriously because the patriots have a crap oline and same with the Giants. Eli, Brees, and Brady are alway on their back... Phuleeze! Brady is the most immobile QB since Dan Marino and is hardly ever on his back. I'm glad I don't read his articles.

 

[13 Times Champs]

Jack I usually agree with your posts but god we need to do better.

 

[jaybadger82]

My responses to McGinn's article inserted in red below (best read in a snarky tone). What an *** headline...

O-lines not vital to success in today's NFL

Green Bay - Five of the last nine Super Bowl championship teams won it all with at least one of their starting offensive linemen on injured reserve. This is NOT evidence that offensive lines aren't vital in today's NFL.
The common denominator for all nine of those champions - New England, Pittsburgh and the New York Giants twice, Indianapolis, New Orleans and Green Bay each once - was superlative quarterbacking. Duh.
Smarting from the season-ending loss of right tackle Bryan Bulaga with a hip injury, the Packers are undeterred, and well they should be. As opposed to, "The Packers are dejected and have decided to forfeit the remainder of their schedule."
Just two years ago, they went the distance with Bulaga at right tackle and Mark Tauscher on injured reserve with a shoulder injury that he suffered in the fourth game. Also not evidence that offensive lines aren't vital in today's NFL.
More importantly, they have Aaron Rodgers, and a quarterback like him can hide a multitude of sins. (Not if he's injured and/or concussed.)
Coach Mike McCarthy's response - shifting left guard T.J. Lang to right tackle, inserting Evan Dietrich-Smith at left guard - was the correct call. But because the Packers didn't have a capable No. 3 tackle on the roster, the subsequent moves have left them seemingly weaker at two positions rather than just one.
Both Lang and Dietrich-Smith have the grit and the ability to make it work. They're tough-minded people, eager for challenges and the next opponent no matter who it is.
It's also not a sure thing that it will work. The offensive line was "working" before Bulaga was hurt? It isn't difficult to foresee a scenario in which both players get beat too often in pass protection and the inside running game, with Dietrich-Smith rather than Lang playing next to center Jeff Saturday, is even less productive than it has been. It isn't.
But, if a team has to embark upon a title run without its capable right tackle, this is the era in which to be doing it.
Offensive lines just aren't as important as they once were. It's also easier to play tackle, guard or center now than it was before every rule change known to man was instituted favoring the offense.
Last week, several personnel men and assistant coaches were asked to name what they considered the best offensive lines in the National Football League. San Francisco emerged as the popular choice even though the 49ers entered the week ranked last in percentage of sacks allowed. Again, not evidence that line play isn't vital.
Tampa Bay, even with Pro Bowl guards Davin Joseph and Carl Nicks on injured reserve, gained some mention. So did Houston and New England. Anecdotal evidence of teams overcoming injuries to the offensive line is NOT evidence that line play is unimportant.
The 49ers' unit was called "physical, not perfect" by one coach. A scout said the 49ers were big and physical, and were doing a "pretty good job."
"There's not that dominating line like there used to be," one scout said. "There just aren't many dominating lines anymore. There are always a few weaknesses." Yep. The game has changed and offensive line development is being neglected by many college programs.
Part of the problem is the shrinking number of dependable offensive linemen. Two scouts said it was more difficult to find a worthwhile offensive lineman, particularly a tackle, than any other position. (See previous comment.)
In the last month, NFL teams have added 19 offensive linemen to their 53-man rosters. Nine came from their own practice squads, one from an opposing practice squad and nine from the street.
"Most of them are older guys that have been hurt, retreads or young guys that are unproven," the personnel director said. "Best thing you can do is have a practice-squad guy who has been there all year, knows the system and you can develop him and get by." With so few NFL-ready offensive linemen coming out of college, smart teams are developing their own hogs.
A few years ago, Packers general manager Ted Thompson was criticized here for not having a veteran backup tackle.
Today, I can see where rookie free agents Don Barclay and Greg Van Roten would give the Packers as much of a fighting chance as some other veteran signees of late such as Jake Scott, Jeremy Bridges and Mitch Petrus.
Obviously, if a unit is as bad as those in Philadelphia, Arizona or Jacksonville, an offense has little or no chance. The Eagles are without two of the starting offensive linemen across the league presently on injured reserve. Bulaga increased the total to 19. ...So bad offensive line play can be fatal. By definition, that pretty much makes offensive lines "vital."
There's a certain level of competence required for an offense to function, but given the shift to more and more passing most lines just kind of fall in together. (Pass blocking doesn't require competence of course.)
As recently as 10 years ago, proficiency in the run game distinguished offensive lines.
Some were short, quick and trapped effectively. Some were fast, clever and moved well laterally in classic split-back systems. Some had road-graders able to drive block straight-ahead and actually knock defenders off the ball.
Today, the teams with top quarterbacks know they don't really need to run. No NFL coach would agree with this sentence and dumb fans are bound to take it literally. Limited to one practice per day in August and limited in number of padded practices during the season, they say it's counter-productive spending the time necessary to develop a cohesive run-blocking group. Sure. In fact, pass blocking requires even greater cohesion.
The variety of running plays has dwindled as well. Everyone runs inside zone, outside stretch plays and draws out of shotgun formation, and most teams have some type of power play in which a guard pulls and there is counter action in the backfield.
As you can imagine, most offensive coaches stress the passing game in allocation of teaching / practice time.
Bigger, more explosive athletes on defense complicate the job. The zone-blitz craze of a few years ago has subsided, but the late insertion of defensive backs in the rush has forced lines to be even sharper mentally.
Still, the job of the men up front might be easier than it has ever been. What a horseshit premise that totally ignores the realities of pass blocking against NFL defenses.
Until a few years ago, a blocker making a mistake in pass pro would get his quarterback drilled even if the ball had just been released. Those knockdowns are little more than harmless pull-offs nowadays in which pass rushers actually hug quarterbacks in fear of being tagged with a major penalty or fine should they fall down.
Older fans will remember a time when offensive lines were celebrated as the indispensable foundation of championship teams.
For most of the 1960s, including the first two Super Bowls, the Packers' offensive line was a masterpiece of power and precision.
There was no bigger reason for Miami's domination in the early 1970s than its muscular front line.
Pittsburgh had 10 starters on its undersized lines in capturing four Super Bowls in the 1970s, but mistakes were always few and far between.
When Joe Montana and Steve Young led the 49ers to five titles in 14 years, line coach Bobb McKittrick always provided sparkling protection with well-drilled units.
Washington advanced to four Super Bowls under Joe Gibbs, winning three, and "The Hogs" become heroes in D.C.
"The Triplets" got the lion's share of the glory when the Cowboys rolled to three championships in the early 1990s, but that mean, intimidating front wall made everyone else look good.
It could be argued that the last offensive line to receive widespread recognition in a Super Bowl run was the Alex Gibbs-coached Broncos in 1997 and '98. Yep. Game's changed.
That was 14 years ago. With one or two exceptions, the Super Bowl since then has been about quarterbacks and passing, passing and quarterbacks.
New England lined up in Super Bowl XXXVIII without three OL starters and still beat Carolina behind Tom Brady.
Pittsburgh was down two starters in Super Bowl XLIII, leaving Ben Roethlisberger playing behind the franchise's worst line in years. But when the Steelers and Cardinals combined for a scant 91 rushing yards in 37 carries, it was Roethlisberger at the end to carry the day.
Two years later, the Packers and Steelers rushed even fewer times (36), but that was an afterthought when Rodgers performed so magnificently. So a low number of rushes means that offensive line isn't vital? I understand that the game has changed but I don't think that diminishes the importance of offensive line play...
As McCarthy prepares for life without Bulaga, he need not ask Lang and Dietrich-Smith to perform beyond their capabilities. Their charge is to not whiff in protection, don't false start and do what they can in the run game.
Rodgers will do what he can to make their life easier with his rapid release to receivers that get open oh so quickly and his ability to dance away from the rush.
"They still can," a defensive line coach for a Packers' opponent replied when asked about Green Bay's title chances. "The thing they got going is Aaron will get rid of the ball.
"And it's Mike's job to protect. If there's a deficiency at right tackle, you've got to put a chipper over there and do all those things."
Lang will have had two weeks to wrap his mind around what must be a harrowing assignment. He had found a home at left guard and earned a big contract, and now it's back to tackle where he started 36 games at Eastern Michigan but just four games for the Packers.
To succeed outside, Lang will need to rely on every ounce of his competitiveness. His arm length of 32 1/8 inches (Marshall Newhouse has 34), well below the 34-inch average of tackles at the combine in 2009 when he was drafted, is better suited for inside. His athleticism is more appropriate for guard, too.
"I think if their offense was a lot of five-step drop and heavy reading, I think you would be more concerned," an NFC North scout said. "But I like the way Lang plays. He's not a mean guy or a mauler. He's a technician.
"Those are two different positions: left guard and right tackle. If they continue to win with him, he could easily be their MVP. Because you don't get people who can do the things he can do." MVP!?!? -That's preposterous! I thought offensive line play isn't vital to success in today's NFL!
A center in high school, Dietrich-Smith made 15 starts at left guard and 28 starts at tackle for Idaho State. This summer, all of his playing time in exhibition games came at center, his best position.
Although Dietrich-Smith (32-inch arms) is physical, he lacks the bulk strength of Lang. No longer does the undersized Saturday have two good big men surrounding him.
"Dietrich-Smith will be a decent stopgap guy, not great," one scout said. "He'll be OK in the doubles. But when he's one-on-one, he'll have some problems."
As it stands now, the Packers might have the shortest pair of tackles in the NFL (both 6 feet 4 inches) and two of their three starters inside stand just 6-2 ½. Sitton is 6-3 1/2, giving Green Bay below average height at all five positions.
From left to right, they will start a fifth-round pick, free agent, free agent, fourth-round pick and fourth-round pick.
So be it. Do your job. Keep Rodgers in one piece.
The NFL of today is designed to be a quarterback's game. The Packers want to keep it that way.

 

[melvin dangerr]

O'linemen are the secret service of the NFL, if U don't protect them it could disrupt your whole Football Nation,mainly the PACKER NATION.....

 

[TJV]

IMO those who responded missed the point:

 

[ivo610]

IMO those who responded missed the point: "Obviously, if a unit is as bad as those in Philadelphia, Arizona or Jacksonville, an offense has little or no chance." What he is saying is what many of us have said about the running game. Both the OL and the running game have to be good enough but you don't need a premiere RB and you don't need an OL filled with first and second round draft picks or pro bowlers to win a championship.

Does anyone dispute the idea that the OL and running game have diminished in importance since the rules have changed to favor the passing game more and more?

People have a hard time accepting something that is completely different from what they have believed for years.

Giants had one of the worst O lines last year.

Kitten said "try telling that to Big Ben and Vick"

Well, if you think Vick's O line is the reason he hasn't won a SB I have a bridge to sell you.

And Big Ben? He has 2 rings he won behind a terrible o line. I don't think anyone needs to tell him.

 

[shockerx]

tell that to the bears tonight..they will go nowhere with that OL

 

[TJV]

tell that to the bears tonight..they will go nowhere with that OL

IMO those who responded missed the point: "Obviously, if a unit is as bad as those in Philadelphia, Arizona or Jacksonville, an offense has little or no chance."

 

[jaybadger82]

IMO those who responded missed the point: "Obviously, if a unit is as bad as those in Philadelphia, Arizona or Jacksonville, an offense has little or no chance."

Well, if poor offensive line play is fatal, this disproves the article's headline by definition: offensive line play is vital in today's NFL.

What he is saying is what many of us have said about the running game. Both the OL and the running game have to be good enough but you don't need a premiere RB and you don't need an OL filled with first and second round draft picks or pro bowlers to win a championship.

I can agree with this.

Does anyone dispute the idea that the OL and running game have diminished in importance since the rules have changed to favor the passing game more and more?

I don't think changes in the game have diminished the importance of pass protection, which is more important than ever for a team like the Packers, and I continue to believe that good teams run the ball with success under a variety of circumstances. I hope the Packers continue to improve in this regard.

 

[jaybadger82]

Does anyone dispute the idea that the OL and running game have diminished in importance since the rules have changed to favor the passing game more and more?

P.S. The mentality that says "we're alright because offensive line play isn't important in today's NFL" overlooks the success that teams like the 'Niners and the Texans have been enjoying, success that is largely built on innovation by bucking the dominant paradigm. I'm not advocating that the Packers emulate these teams (we're built to succeed in our own way); I just admire the independent thinking that says "let's succeed by doing what everyone else is overlooking right now."

 

[JBlood]

Passing efficiency on offense and defensive passing efficiency are the 2 stats that correlate most closely with winning (Advanced NFL Stats). The offensive line has a lot to do with successful pass plays by stopping opposing defenses from making plays--sacks, tipped passes, interceptions, fumble recoveries, etc. The fact that a defensive front 7 may wreak havoc is largely due to its domination of the opposing offensive line. So offensive line stats really are reflected in opposing teams' defensive front 7 playmaking stats. Both the Giants and the Packers had great line play on both sides of the ball during their runs to the last 2 Championships even though their line play was average at best during much of the regular season. Control the LOS and you win games. I don't agree with McGinn's thesis.

 

[HyponGrey]

The way I read it, the article reads that OL play is still vital.

 

[mradtke66]

The article states that the bar for "acceptable" offensive line play has been lowered, ie, you can do well and go further with an over-all lower quality line than you could 10 years ago. Rule changes, scheme advances, and a few other things allowed for this change. It also depends on the team.

Your line still has to meet that bar though. Look at the Bears who are probably just below the bar or the Eagles who are well below. With our preferred starters all healthy (Newhouse, Lang, Saturday, Sitton, Bulaga) I'd estimate us at right above that line. With the current reshuffling, I'd put us at the line to just under the line, depending on the circumstances, play call, down and distance, etc.

What does all that mean? You don't want to spend too much on your offensive line because past a certain point, you're not getting measurable benefit for those dollars. Think of it this way. Is Joe Thomas worth 10 million dollars per year (which is what google is telling me is his approximate salary.)? He sure is. Is Cleveland getting 10 million dollars of value from him? Probably not.

 

[jaybadger82]

The article states that the bar for "acceptable" offensive line play has been lowered, ie, you can do well and go further with an over-all lower quality line than you could 10 years ago. Rule changes, scheme advances, and a few other things allowed for this change. It also depends on the team.

The article sends a lot of mixed signals but this isn't how I would characterize its message.

If you're going to say that offensive line play must meet the "bar for acceptable play" then you're not really saying anything at all. When teams win games, the favorable outcome itself would seem to indicate that their offensive line play was adequate. It's like saying, "It's good enough if it's good enough." It also glosses over the differences in strategy between teams: Green Bay's requirements for winning o-line play are different than those of Houston.

What does all that mean? You don't want to spend too much on your offensive line because past a certain point, you're not getting measurable benefit for those dollars. Think of it this way. Is Joe Thomas worth 10 million dollars per year (which is what google is telling me is his approximate salary.)? He sure is. Is Cleveland getting 10 million dollars of value from him? Probably not.

You could say the same thing about spending on any position. Good franchises maximize value.

P.S., Cleveland's problems have nothing to do with the fact they're paying $10 million per year for Thomas and getting pro bowl play at LT. Cleveland's problems are the result of bad management and missed picks elsewhere. Weeden would be getting absolutely murdered and Richardson wouldn't be (somewhat) justifying his draft position if they weren't playing behind Thomas.

Left Tackle is one of the most critical positions in the game. Outside of Miami (Jake Long), virtually every franchise in the league would jump at the opportunity to pay $10 million/year for Thomas. I would swap Clay Matthews for Thomas straight up today if I could. Yeah, I said it.

 

[mradtke66]

If you're going to say that offensive line play must meet the "bar for acceptable play" then you're not really saying anything at all. When teams win games, the favorable outcome itself would seem to indicate that their offensive line play was adequate. It's like saying, "It's good enough if it's good enough." It also glosses over the differences in strategy between teams: Green Bay's requirements for winning o-line play are different than those of Houston.

You could say the same thing about spending on any position. Franchises must maximize value.

Franchises maximizing value is the key and is a good way to put it. And my post is a little vague I'll agree. If I can put it another way, with some made up numbers: In 1996 you needed to spend roughly roughly 20% of your cap on the offensive line (and have players worth that amount) to be a Super Bowl contender. In 2012, you can do it with roughly 13% of your cap.

P.S., Cleveland's problems have nothing to do with the fact they're paying $10 million per year for Thomas and getting pro bowl play at LT. Cleveland's problems are the result of bad management and missed picks elsewhere. Weeden would be getting absolutely murdered and Richardson wouldn't be (somewhat) justifying his draft position if they weren't playing behind Thomas.

Left Tackle is one of the most critical positions in the game. Outside of Miami (Jake Long), virtually every franchise in the league would jump at the opportunity to pay $10 million/year for Thomas. I would swap Clay Matthews for Thomas straight up today if I could. Yeah, I said it.

I agree that Cleveland's problems don't stem from paying 10 million from to Thomas. And I completely disagree with trading Matthews for Thomas or that Left Tackle is that important, which is a bit more in line the article.

Offensive lines don't win games anymore. Put Thomas on the Packers and what changes on offense? We give up fewer sacks, of course, but Thomas is not a dominating run blocker. He's a good one and better than Newhouse in all facets, but we wouldn't see 18x more offensive improvement with Thomas in the line up instead of Newhouse, which is the the approximate difference in salary (11 million vs. 600,000). We wouldn't even be 2x better.

On the flip side, look what Matthews does for our defense or rather, look what his absence does to it.

My thoughts on the matter follow the idea that rosters are filled with 2-4 superstars and 49-51 "guys." The guys just need to not make mistakes and take advantage of what playing with those superstars give you. Our superstars are Rodgers and Matthews.

 

[slaughter25]

I would swap Clay Matthews for Thomas straight up today if I could. Yeah, I said it.

There is no way in this universe or any other that this idea could even possibly make any sense. The gap between Newhouse and Thomas would have to be twice that of the gap between Matthews and the next man up (Walden?) for this to make sense. I don't see it. An elite pass rusher can have a defense built around him and succeed. As you can see with the browns for example is what happens when you try and build a team around an elite tackle.

Bottom line, would Thomas make the packers a better football team? Absolutely. Would adding Joe Thomas and losing Clay Matthews make this a better football team? Absolutely not.

 

[jaybadger82]

Franchises maximizing value is the key and is a good way to put it. And my post is a little vague I'll agree. If I can put it another way, with some made up numbers: In 1996 you needed to spend roughly roughly 20% of your cap on the offensive line (and have players worth that amount) to be a Super Bowl contender. In 2012, you can do it with roughly 13% of your cap.

Can you provide some links explaining the methods used to come up with these numbers? -This would help me better understand.

Offensive lines don't win games anymore. Put Thomas on the Packers and what changes on offense? We give up fewer sacks, of course, but Thomas is not a dominating run blocker. He's a good one and better than Newhouse in all facets, but we wouldn't see 18x more offensive improvement with Thomas in the line up instead of Newhouse, which is the the approximate difference in salary (11 million vs. 600,000). We wouldn't even be 2x better.

Offensive lines may not win games but we know they can lose them. I also place quite a premium on protecting Rodgers, since our offense is largely built around him staying upright and delivering the ball to the wealth of receiving options we've assembled.

 

[rodell330]

i'd trade Newhouse for a stick of Trident layer gum...straight up. On another note this article makes no sense, show me a stat where the most sacked qb in a season has won the Super Bowl. The line plays a huge role in that. The qb could run like RG3, be built like Brady Quinn, and throw the football like Rodgers but if he had the worst o-line in the NFL i can almost guarantee he'd be hurt, or have a losing record. You know you have a bad o-line when teams don't even like blitzing your qb yet you still manage to give up a ton of sacks. Pathetic and inexcusable.

 

[jaybadger82]

There is no way in this universe or any other that this idea could even possibly make any sense. The gap between Newhouse and Thomas would have to be twice that of the gap between Matthews and the next man up (Walden?) for this to make sense. I don't see it. An elite pass rusher can have a defense built around him and succeed. As you can see with the browns for example is what happens when you try and build a team around an elite tackle.

Bottom line, would Thomas make the packers a better football team? Absolutely. Would adding Joe Thomas and losing Clay Matthews make this a better football team? Absolutely not.

You miss the point. It wasn't my intent to argue that we should swap Matthews for Thomas in my post above.

Although I would personally make such a deal, it was merely suggested to demonstrate the value of a quality LT in today's NFL. Here was my thinking: Rodgers is our offense and keeping him healthy and upright is necessary for us to move the ball (see NYG game). Thomas would be great in protection of Rodgers' blind side over the next several years. Also, Matthews is going to begin earning a much larger chunk of the cap in the near future, so his value will decline some after he gets his new deal. I also think it's easier to find pass rushers and tweak your defensive scheme than it is to compensate for an offensive line that can't pass protect. For example, we've stockpiled great weapons at WR but we can't make use of them unless Rodgers can get through his progressions. Thomas would really protect the franchise and amplify our strengths in the passing game.

But, again, not my intent to highjack the thread on this ridiculous proposition.

 

[mradtke66]

Can you provide some links explaining the methods used to come up with these numbers? -This would help me better understand.

Sure. They are completely made up They are merely one way to interpret the article that started this discussion or illustrate the point that I believe is being made.

 

[mradtke66]

Offensive lines may not win games but we know they can lose them. I also place quite a premium on protecting Rodgers, since our offense is largely built around him staying upright and delivering the ball to the wealth of receiving options we've assembled.

There is the rub and the real trick. Your line doesn't need to be great, just not bad enough to lose the game.

 

[rodell330]

There is the rub and the real trick. Your line doesn't need to be great, just not bad enough to lose the game.

Well ours is bad enough to lose games so we don't even qualify.

 

[mradtke66]

Although I would personally make such a deal, it was merely suggested to demonstrate the value of a quality LT in today's NFL. Here was my thinking: Rodgers is our offense and keeping him healthy and upright is necessary for us to move the ball (see NYG game). Thomas would be great in protection of Rodgers' blind side over the next several years. Also, Matthews is going to begin earning a much larger chunk of the cap in the near future, so his value will decline some after he gets his new deal.

The problem with valuing Left Tackles above all else is another mistake. Newhouse had his share of problems on Sunday. So did Lang and EDS. Having a stud blind side blocker doesn't solve all of your problems. Line play is like team within a team. If there is too great a disparity between your best and worst, the opposition will pick on everyone else. Similarly, there is a way to minimize that one stud's impact in the game: Put your worst rusher on him.

Imagine if you will, the Packers play the Browns tomorrow. Matthews and Thomas would probably play to a draw. So lets put Pickett or Wilson on Thomas all game long. Either is good enough that they need to be blocked, so I'll 'force' you to waste your best on my worst. Then I'll move Matthews to the offensive right. You can counter that by moving the pocket, but I'll take the risk that most right handed quarterbacks can't effectively roll left over and over again.

I also think it's easier to find pass rushers and tweak your defensive scheme than it is to compensate for an offensive line that can't pass protect.

That's probably the craziest thing I've heard. Good, 10+ sacks per year pass rushers are probably one of the rarest of beasts, only the franchise quarterback is rarer.