Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Offensive line building theory


AU-panther
 Share

Recommended Posts

A great O-line can make an average QB look good. So if you have a good QB, a solid O-line can make him look great.

Time is key. Time to let receivers get open. Time to let big plays develop. Time to improvise until a receiver breaks open. Time to see the field. I hope we draft a LT, OG/C and a CB in the 1st 3 picks (not necessarily in that order).  With the guys we signed in FA, 1 or 2 have to have decent year. 

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, musicman said:

A great O-line can make an average QB look good. So if you have a good QB, a solid O-line can make him look great.

Time is key. Time to let receivers get open. Time to let big plays develop. Time to improvise until a receiver breaks open. Time to see the field. I hope we draft a LT, OG/C and a CB in the 1st 3 picks (not necessarily in that order).  With the guys we signed in FA, 1 or 2 have to have decent year. 

Great O lines don't always require great players.  They require great communication between players.  You can have good to average players on your o line and if they know how to hand off stunts and twists and who is responsible for blitz pick ups from different levels they can look great.  That's why if you get a o line that works together well you don't want to let anyone leave.

The 2 places on the field where communication matters more than actual ability is O line and secondary.  That is why it is so hard to keep them together because when you get a good one everyone is willing to overpay in free agency to get one of the guys because they think they will be just as good in a new system with new people around him as he was in the system he was in before 

 

  • Pie 6
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, ncstatekwi said:

If Sewell is not there at 8 then We don’t go O-Line until later rounds.  The drop off even after Slater is minimal..I can see us addressing it sometime after 1st round!

IMO the drop from Sewell/slater is substantial.  Granted there are a lot of guys in that 2nd tier but they to me have major issues.  Whether it’s durability, motivation etc.  they all have a knock on them.  I am not seeing any knocks on Sewell slater.  Pick one at 8.  Another lineman in the 2nd.  Hopefully a starter at safety in the 3rd and be done with it.   For once I would love for my football team to have an aggressive mean talented oline.  I have no clue what that feels like to not worry about your qb being decapitated each week.  

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AU-panther said:

Speaking of receivers, this is one reason it wouldn't shock me if Cincy did pass on Sewell and took Chase.  I get the theory behind it, but I would still lean towards the OT.  I'm not saying OTs are more important, that is an entirely different discussion, but they do seem a lot harder to find both in the draft and free agency.  Some years you can't even buy one in free agency even if you are willing to spend the money.

This is the key to everything in draft position. "More important" is generally meaningless when it comes to drafting (except maybe the difference between QB and punter) - it's all about supply of people that can do the job "well enough". You have to have a starting lineup (and preferably a depth chart) made up entirely of players that can do that job well enough to win or you have a major exploitable weakness and you lose unless the opposing coach is Adam Gase.

RBs don't get drafted high not because they aren't an important position, but because there are far more people out there that can do the job well enough to win than there are spots on NFL rosters. The difference between an elite and an adequate RB is substantial, but not enough to make up for the difference between an adequate and an inadequate OT. That's why only stupid teams pick elite RBs when sure-thing (even if just adequate) OTs are on the board if both are a roster need. WRs don't have quite the glut of talent to roster position that RBs do (likely because you need more WRs on a roster), but the supply to demand ratio is still favorable enough that taking a WR when you also need an available OT is basically a giant neon sign pointing out which franchises are still run by people that could not possibly have achieved their current position on pure merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been crying for this organization to draft OL since the fat @ss Gettlemagic days. IF I were GM, I would draft an OL every year, not in the 1st round of course. Hell, a DL too. You have 5 OL and in most cases 4 DL that start, per team. The games are won here, in the trenches. Do you guys remember how big San Fran and Seattle were when this team was on the come up to the Super Bowl? Building an OL, and DL for that matter, is important to winning in the NFL. You can't ignore them and get away with it. Super Bowl 50 and this past year's Super Bowl are proof of it.

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, musicman said:

A great O-line can make an average QB look good. So if you have a good QB, a solid O-line can make him look great.

Time is key. Time to let receivers get open. Time to let big plays develop. Time to improvise until a receiver breaks open. Time to see the field. I hope we draft a LT, OG/C and a CB in the 1st 3 picks (not necessarily in that order).  With the guys we signed in FA, 1 or 2 have to have decent year. 

Allen looks better than he is in Buffalo because they've put a great Oline infront of him.

I hope we do the same - imagine McCaffrey behind a great Oline. It'd be a bloodbath. 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael G said:

We need a LT Period. We draft Sewell if he falls to us (i think its a no-brainer!) Slater is the next best option but what if Pitts or Fields are available at 8 too. Who do you think is higher on our board Slater, Pitts, or Fields?

It better be Pitts. He'd be the 2nd or 3rd rated player over all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tbe said:

I’d almost rather trade down and pick up one or two more solid OL guys than take one really good OL guy.

Cheaper and better for the team in the long run.

The difference between 8 and say 15 is only about 5 million over 4 years. That is insignificant.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...