Debunking the myth: OL

[ghst187]

As many of you know from my other postings, it continually irritates me that media types put an asterisk or caveat beside the successes of our QBs and RBs and even by the success of our OL citing that "Dallas invested so heavily in their OL with draft picks and big money" as if that was any semblance of a means to success in the NFL. Certainly it is important, but doing so doesn't automatically equate to greatness in any one area of a team. If it were that easy, more teams would be doing it. In fact, as I'll show you, many have tried to throw picks and money at their OL but still have middling to poor OL play. The reason we have a great OL is because we happened to pick great players at their respective positions on the OL who have progressed into great players and gelled well together as a unit. All of this is much easier said that done.
So, I took a look at every team's 1 round draft picks (I didn't go beyond the first although I suspect if I had, it would only further support my points) since 2000 to see how many 1st round picks every team has spent on OL. I also annotated those with very recent, heavy investment in OL. I didn't look at FA. I then pulled PFF's OL rankings for 2017 (https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-ranking-all-32-nfl-offensive-lines-this-season/) (You can argue with PFF all day long about specific #3 vs #5 but it was just to give a general idea). Yes, admittedly this is a fairly simplistic method to look at the debate as one could get really crazy and add in salaries, FA, all draft picks, etc. I kept it simple on purpose. However, if you go down the path with money....well we are resigning our top 3 OL because they are great players. A lot of teams don't pay big money to their former 1st round draft pick OLs because they aren't worth it so that becomes a chicken/egg argument to some extent.

Based on the below, you will see quickly that just throwing first round draft picks at the OL doesn't in any way shape or form guarantee you of having a great, or even good, OL. Otherwise Detroit would be better than the 19th rated OL, Miami higher than 30th, and Seattle would be higher than 32nd! San Fran has used 5 first rounders on OL since 2000 and 3 since 2010 (as opposed to our 3 since 2011) yet finds themselves with the 28th rated OL in the league. Eight teams (yes 8!) have used more first round draft picks than us on OL since 2000 (and some as many since 2010) yet find themselves buried far behind us in OL strength. Another eight (yes 8!) teams have used the same amount of first rounders on OL since 2000 as us. In other words, we are exactly in the middle of the pack as far as OL investment since 2000 yet top 2 (top 1 depending on who you talk to) in OL ratings. Granted we would be higher in terms of investment if you just looked at last 7 years but we still would definitely not be at the top. You will also notice the inverse...i.e. Oakland has spent only one first rounder since 2000 on OL (probably feeling burned since it was the Robert Gallery pick that busted) yet they find themselves in the top 5 rated OLs. Also, Atlanta, Wash, and NE find themselves in top tier of OL play despite only spending 2 first round picks on OL since 2000.

The bottomline: If all the accomplishments of our QB/RB and OL itself are to be caveated with "but Dallas invested so much in their OL" then why has it been so hard to field good OLs for about half of the rest of the league who invested just as much in their OL? And likewise, why is it that some teams who have invested hardly any first round picks on OL find themselves with top 10 OLs?
The reason we have a great OL is because we happened to pick great players at their respective positions on the OL who have progressed and gelled well together as a unit. Stop caveating their greatness and just appreciate it!


Det: 6 (5x Ts + 1xG, 3x since 2012)
Miami: 5 (3 since 2011)
Seattle: 5: 3 since 2010)
San Fran: 5: (3 since 2010 but Anthony Davis was a bust)
Chi: 4 (3x since 2008)
Cincy: 4 (3x since 2009)
Cle: 4
AZ: 4 (2x since 2013)
LA Rams: 3: including Jason Smith #2 overall, so bad they let him go after 3 seasons)
Tenn: 3, all since 2013 and all top 11 overall picks, not coincidentally have a very good OL
NO: 3 (2 since 2015)
Philly: 3 (2 since 2011 but one was Danny Watkins)
Pit: 3
Dal 3 (3 since 2011)
Balt: 3
Den: 3
Atl: 2
Buf: 2 (Mike Williams flop)
Car: 2
GB: 2 (both since 2010)
Tampa: 2, none since 2006
Wash: 2 both since 2010
Indy: 2
Jax: 2 (both since 2009)
KC: 2 (including Eric Fisher #1 overall in 2013)
Min: 2 (no coincidence they have had a terrible OL for a long time)
NE: 2
NYG: 2 both since 2013
NYJ: 2 both in 2006 shortly after which they had a decent OL for a while
LA Chargers: 1
Hou: 1
Oak: 1 (Robert Gallery who was horrible)


PFF rated OLs 2017:

1: Tenn
2: Dallas
3: Pitt
4: Oak
5: GB (arguably due to their ability to get away with massive holding ha)
6: Atl
7: Wash
8: Philly
9: Balt
10: NE
11: Buff
12: NO
13: Cincy
14: KC
15: Chicago
16: Clev
17: Carolina
18: Houston
19: Detroit
20: NYG
21: NYJ
22: Jax
23: TB
24: Den
25: Indy
26: Arizona
27: StL Rams
28: San Fran
29: Minny
30: Miami
31: San Diego/LA Chargers
32: Seattle

 

[Alexander]

A huge reason other teams "can't do it" is partially due to the changes in college football paired with the limited exposure to players in the form of practices. If a team has drafted poorly on the OL, a good bit of that is on college programs putting out unprepared players and then not getting time to work with them once they are professionals. There is a reason that certain schools do a better job than others at producing capable OL who can step right in and play. Take Wisconsin for example. If anything, our scouting department recognized that. You don't see Dallas drafting OL from the Baylors and the like.

 

[Stash]

A huge reason other teams "can't do it" is partially due to the changes in college football paired with the limited exposure to players in the form of practices. If a team has drafted poorly on the OL, a good bit of that is on college programs putting out unprepared players and then not getting time to work with them once they are professionals. There is a reason that certain schools do a better job than others at producing capable OL who can step right in and play. Take Wisconsin for example. If anything, our scouting department recognized that. You don't see Dallas drafting OL from the Baylors and the like.

I found this to be an informative article on the subject. It points to Rams busted OL Greg Robinson in particular, but makes a good case overall, and supports why are own guys have succeeded where others have failed.

https://theringer.com/greg-robinson-los-angeles-rams-detroit-lions-offensive-line-busts-dc63ea1482f6

 

[Stash]

Here's another good one from former lineman Geoff Schwartz:

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/4/25/...sive-line-prospects-evaluation-geoff-schwartz

 

[ghst187]

I found this to be an informative article on the subject. It points to Rams busted OL Greg Robinson in particular, but makes a good case overall, and supports why are own guys have succeeded where others have failed.

https://theringer.com/greg-robinson-los-angeles-rams-detroit-lions-offensive-line-busts-dc63ea1482f6

good and interesting article. Man Robinson just looks like he doesn't really want to play football in those clips IMO.
Just another highlight about how difficult it is to find great OLs, even in the first round, let alone 3, and then a staff being able to mold them into a great unit.
Our coaches and scouts should get a lot of credit for our OL also.
It ain't easy and it keeps getting harder.

 

[BigCatMonaco]

This reminds me of something I did around December seeing what investments were made on OL around the league. This is through four rounds

 

[Longboysfan]

I found this to be an informative article on the subject. It points to Rams busted OL Greg Robinson in particular, but makes a good case overall, and supports why are own guys have succeeded where others have failed.

https://theringer.com/greg-robinson-los-angeles-rams-detroit-lions-offensive-line-busts-dc63ea1482f6

Maybe good scouting on the Cowboys part has avoided the O line busts.

 

[Bullflop]

I don't pay too much attention to what the scribes of other teams and other cities choose to say about our OL and our RBs benefitting from their blocking abilities. It's merely the element of jealousy existing when they choose to contrive those types of comments to begin with. It's just trite.

 

[CATCH17]

then why has it been so hard to field good OLs for about half of the rest of the league who invested just as much in their OL

Because the investment means nothing if the OLineman they drafted isn't a quality player.


Dallas is super fortunate that our investments have been hits and not misses. Not only have they hit but they are All Pro players.

 

[Alexander]

The bottomline: If all the accomplishments of our QB/RB and OL itself are to be caveated with "but Dallas invested so much in their OL" then why has it been so hard to field good OLs for about half of the rest of the league who invested just as much in their OL? And likewise, why is it that some teams who have invested hardly any first round picks on OL find themselves with top 10 OLs?

We also happened to pick pro ready players that we did not have to "coach up" and basically re-train. It is very hard to develop players as it is with the limited access to players. You look at the OL, they need contact and lots of it. With the new CBA, they simply cannot get enough work. It is a trend that will continue. I also believe you will see more and more teams drafting OL from programs like Wisconsin, Michigan, Stanford, Notre Dame and the like. We should be recognized for that insight. We also have had good coaching in that particular position group. With Pollack (and Callahan before him) providing a stable message to good talent, it helps.

Dallas has invested heavily that is true, It is a combination of all of those things coming together. At times, teams simply draft better at some positions more than others as well. We know what to look for with OL for example, but take a look at DL, we suffer badly in comparison. Seattle is our mirror opposite, they draft OL, but they draft raw players with the intent of having them be "coached up" by Tom Cable, which is a lot like wanting Marinelli to make "rush men" out of moderate talent at best.

 

[Alexander]

I don't pay too much attention to what the scribes of other teams and other cities choose to say about our OL and our RBs benefitting from their blocking abilities. It's merely the element of jealousy existing when they choose to contrive those types of comments to begin with. It's just trite.

I don't know if it is jealousy as much as laziness.

 

[Bullflop]

I don't know if it is jealousy as much as laziness.

I wouldn't be too surprised if it's a bit of both. Scribes can oftentimes be homers too.

 

[Stash]

Maybe good scouting on the Cowboys part has avoided the O line busts.

Most definitely. And knowing the schemes those players are playing in college is a big part of that scouting.

 

[AbeBeta]

Since 2000 is not a good comparison point if you are looking at 2017 performance. Do you expect teams to still be getting contributions from those players?

 

[Ashwynn]

you would think Cle would have a better Oline than they do. They must have picked some really bad players to spend 4 first rounders and have such a sucky Oline. Cause there Oline is not good at all.

 

[DFWJC]

Because the investment means nothing if the OLineman they drafted isn't a quality player.


Dallas is super fortunate that our investments have been hits and not misses. Not only have they hit but they are All Pro players.

Thanks Catch
Glaring and obvious point that someone needed to make.

Dallas has a great line because the guys they drafted are great players.

 

[DFWJC]

you would think Cle would have a better Oline than they do. They must have picked some really bad players to spend 4 first rounders and have such a sucky Oline. Cause there Oline is not good at all.

Cleveland WILL have a good line this year.
They made some great moves to address that this offseason

 

[plasticman]

There should be no mystery. All success by any one squad of players on a team is going to depend significantly on the quality of the other squads that make up that offense or defense.

This same O-line didn't look as dominant in 2015 with Weeden and Randle lined up behind them.

Another example:

The team if the 90's didn't have a single 1st round pick on the offensive line, it was made up of two former undrafted players, a 2nd, 3rd, and a 6th round pick later replaced with a 2nd.

The undrafted players and the 6th round pick had been there for several years prior to the arrival of the JJ's.

And yet, when they acquire Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith, both #1's, in addition to better coaching, they formed one of the best O-lines in history.

It was the also the result of finding the right guys, creating the right culture, and keeping them together in order to develop familiarity and cohesion.

One of the common attributes of great O-lines is the times spent together as teammates.

 

[diefree666]

Scouts - it starts there. We happen to have ones that are really good at OL NOW. Because we were not so good for years (remember Costa and the proctologist and too many others that the team was BADLY wrong on)

The CBA so limits meaningful practice now - especially for the linemen. The only practice that matters for them is full contact. And there is so little allowed now.

And the spread in College means all too many O line prospects are at best half trained. Now that does not always have to be that way - Notre Dame cranks out good O linemen but is certainly not a pro set. But you look at where the best keep coming from like Wisconsin and most of those schools are not spread.

Evaluation is the key; and once again that is mainly the scouts and THEN the position coaches. Right NOW we are probably the best in the league by a decent margin in evaluating O line prospects.

 

[Kevinicus]

Hmm. I've never heard the caveat of diminishing the group because of the first rounders being used.