Debunking the myth: OL

[Yakuza Rich]

Football Outsiders found with good evidence that sacks are more correlated to the QB than the O-Line. There's a stronger likelihood that the QB and their style of play and ability to not get sacked will play a larger contributing factor than the O-Line skill.

When it comes to the running game, they found the correlation is more about the O-Line and a change in the O-Line coach. Of course, these are just correlations as they are not 100% fact.

Like Alexander said, the Cowboys found quality O-Linemen that played in pro style offensive systems with their hand in the dirt. I also think that many people overlook the fact that Doug Free was a 4th round pick, Ronald Leary was a UDFA and so many people scoffed at us picking Travis Frederick in the first round. Remember, it was a 'complete blunder' because our center ran a slow 40 time. And they also forget that our TE's play a large role in our blocking success, particularly in the run game.

To me, if you want to develop a good O-Line in today's NFL it starts with the center and not the left tackle. Defenses love to attack the A-Gap and between that and so much shotgun use you need a center that can direct the O-Line against all of the blitz looks, stand his ground in pass pro to deal with those blitzes and to deal with large 3-4 NT's and quick 4-3 DT's, run block to help keep defenses honest and shotgun snap accurately.

Then if you can get a dominant offensive tackle on either side (RT or LT) that doesn't need help and is a terror in the run game...now you're onto something. But, you still need a starting TE that can pass receive and both run block and pass protect to keep teams honest.





YR

 

[Stash]

Football Outsiders found with good evidence that sacks are more correlated to the QB than the O-Line. There's a stronger likelihood that the QB and their style of play and ability to not get sacked will play a larger contributing factor than the O-Line skill.

When it comes to the running game, they found the correlation is more about the O-Line and a change in the O-Line coach. Of course, these are just correlations as they are not 100% fact.

Like Alexander said, the Cowboys found quality O-Linemen that played in pro style offensive systems with their hand in the dirt. I also think that many people overlook the fact that Doug Free was a 4th round pick, Ronald Leary was a UDFA and so many people scoffed at us picking Travis Frederick in the first round. Remember, it was a 'complete blunder' because our center ran a slow 40 time. And they also forget that our TE's play a large role in our blocking success, particularly in the run game.

To me, if you want to develop a good O-Line in today's NFL it starts with the center and not the left tackle. Defenses love to attack the A-Gap and between that and so much shotgun use you need a center that can direct the O-Line against all of the blitz looks, stand his ground in pass pro to deal with those blitzes and to deal with large 3-4 NT's and quick 4-3 DT's, run block to help keep defenses honest and shotgun snap accurately.

Then if you can get a dominant offensive tackle on either side (RT or LT) that doesn't need help and is a terror in the run game...now you're onto something. But, you still need a starting TE that can pass receive and both run block and pass protect to keep teams honest.





YR

That's a very good point about center. A recent example would be the Falcons' improvement after signing Alex Mack.

Good stuff.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

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

Reading the OP he makes a good, if obvious, argument that investment alone doesn't lead to success. One needs look no further than our defensive line to see an inkling of this.

The OP does not do a good job on establishing how our RB/QB aren't in some part a function of their offensive line being dominant....even though that was a central claim.

 

[Alexander]

That's a very good point about center. A recent example would be the Falcons' improvement after signing Alex Mack.

It starts there. If you look at weak OL across the league, it comes from not having that player at the pivot. It is interesting to me how certain teams never take it seriously.

Outside of your blindside protector at LT, no other OL position is as crucial. Dallas started the OL rebuild there sequentially and nailed it with a center, who most teams would never draft that high. Some teams view it as a non-essential, like a guard, which really is not that smart.

And our worst OL units over the years have had players like Clay Shiver and Phil Costa starting at center. Our best have had Mark Stepnoski, Ray Donaldson and now Frederick.

 

[Stash]

It starts there. If you look at weak OL across the league, it comes from not having that player at the pivot. It is interesting to me how certain teams never take it seriously.

Outside of your blindside protector at LT, no other OL position is as crucial. Dallas started the OL rebuild there sequentially and nailed it with a center, who most teams would never draft that high. Some teams view it as a non-essential, like a guard, which really is not that smart.

And our worst OL units over the years have had players like Clay Shiver and Phil Costa starting at center. Our best have had Mark Stepnoski, Ray Donaldson and now Frederick.

Look how well letting Mack escape worked out for Cleveland?

But you're right, as the center position goes, so goes the offense. Surprisingly that it's still not valued as highly as it should be.

I'm just glad that our team sees the value.

 

[sideon]

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.

Tyron was pretty raw coming out of college, and the hope was he could become a LT after being a RT at USC.

 

[AbeBeta]

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.

Really? They've had one first round ol since 2010. Sounds like they aren't investing

 

[tyke1doe]

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

Thanks for the link/article. I read it all. Good insight.

 

[CATCH17]

Football Outsiders found with good evidence that sacks are more correlated to the QB than the O-Line. There's a stronger likelihood that the QB and their style of play and ability to not get sacked will play a larger contributing factor than the O-Line skill.

When it comes to the running game, they found the correlation is more about the O-Line and a change in the O-Line coach. Of course, these are just correlations as they are not 100% fact.

Like Alexander said, the Cowboys found quality O-Linemen that played in pro style offensive systems with their hand in the dirt. I also think that many people overlook the fact that Doug Free was a 4th round pick, Ronald Leary was a UDFA and so many people scoffed at us picking Travis Frederick in the first round. Remember, it was a 'complete blunder' because our center ran a slow 40 time. And they also forget that our TE's play a large role in our blocking success, particularly in the run game.

To me, if you want to develop a good O-Line in today's NFL it starts with the center and not the left tackle. Defenses love to attack the A-Gap and between that and so much shotgun use you need a center that can direct the O-Line against all of the blitz looks, stand his ground in pass pro to deal with those blitzes and to deal with large 3-4 NT's and quick 4-3 DT's, run block to help keep defenses honest and shotgun snap accurately.

Then if you can get a dominant offensive tackle on either side (RT or LT) that doesn't need help and is a terror in the run game...now you're onto something. But, you still need a starting TE that can pass receive and both run block and pass protect to keep teams honest.





YR

Just look at Brady.

He could play with no O-line in front of him almost because the scheme he plays in manufactures guys getting open quick at will.


Dallas is the opposite.. Loooong and drawn out routes. Beasley has helped in that department and i'm sure Switzer will as well but Beasley just reads the defense more than he gets schemed open quickly.

 

[Direwolf63]

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.

And this is why it is wrong to put asterisks beside last years performances of Elliott, but especially Prescott.

You see many around the league and even on this site (Erod among others) who dismiss Dak's performance last year because he inherited a top O-line. Weeden and Cassel also played behind a top o-line the previous year. And we all know what happened.