gftChris Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingfooldoug Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingfooldoug Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingfooldoug Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 But how does fantasy football impact FO decisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 Related note - Jonathan Allen was a 185lb receiver in HS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 Related note - Jonathan Allen was a 185lb receiver in HS. I smell "tackle eligible" in goal line sets... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Post Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SWRZ-ib7bGU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SWRZ-ib7bGU The VH remasters that came out a few years ago were outstanding... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 I smell "tackle eligible" in goal line sets... Like a JJ Watt play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrb12711 Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gumby73 Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrb12711 Posted December 9, 2016 Report Share Posted December 9, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted December 9, 2016 Report Share Posted December 9, 2016 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. Sure.... why not... QBs and WRs "work out" together a lot in the off-season. And lord knows Joe T. can coach. Have to look no further than Schwartz to see that. Over 4 years he evolved to as near a mirror-image clone of Joe as was possible. I wonder if Joe has any interest in a second career as an OL coach when the time comes? ... may that time still be a ways off... Aside: It was good to see Mitch do well last nite. When Mack had success it seemed to come thru Fischer. 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. Completely subjective topic and one where experience at whatever level is more informative than observation. 200#? That's a big boy compared to me. I was listed at 185, but truth be told that was my weigh in for my team physical... before double sessions started. By the end of double sessions I was in the 160's... albeit the upper 160's thank you very much. So ditto.... angles were important and tech was the path to the angles. I forget that practice time is not just limited for the pros by the CBA, but also by the NCAA both in frequency and duration. That plus the evolving "style" of the collegiate game just doesn't prepare OL like it once did. And schools that still play a game closer to the "old days", like Wisconsin, simply don't have the success that attracts the best talent. Year in and out I love watching Wisconsin's OL collectively, but it's not every year I see an individual kid in that unit that I think will translate well to the pros. And when I do it's mostly an interior player. Other schools that I used to see as OL factories are not the same today. Nebraska comes to mind. And then there are those where it's hard to trust what I see in a player because the the OL is such a tight unit that it's hard to see where their talent ends and the unit's takes over. BAMA comes to mind immediately. End of rambling for now.... On your Athlete/tech balance... agree the deficit is on the tech side for all the reasons we've mulled over. Add that in general the athletes today are superior to those of 10 or 20 years ago and it's QED. But that's an issue as well. I think the more athletic the OL, the more dominant his athleticism will be at any level... until it suddenly isn't. And if the level where it suddenly "isn't"is the pro level, then it can be too late. Work habits have never developed. Maybe in the end it's a third factor that is more often associated with other positions, "skill positions", more than it is OL, that has to be probed in prospects... inner drive... AKA heart? Maybe love of the OL? It's a big factor with QBs. I wonder how much time is spent on it with OL? For that matter I wonder how much white board time is spent with OL diagramming plays? On your last point... I think OL is the "right field" of football. Where you stick the kid that's just not quite good enough to play another position. Good chat... sorry for the rambling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 The thread title was misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 Most end up that way after we're thru with them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.