Importance and evolution of the Left Tackle

[todd]

I didn't see The Blind Side movie, but I just finished the book. Since I didn't see the movie, I will say the book had a boatload of research and information on the evolution and importance of the LT position, how defensive and offensive philosophies have influenced the position. Definitely more football research and history than I expected.

 

The book isn't really about Michael Oher as much as it is about the Left Tackle position. I was expecting a puff piece about human drama -- you know, the Oprah Book Club kind of dreck -- but it was really a FOOTBALL book with a little human interest thrown in.

 

The result is it really confirmed for me that the only real choice Buffalo has is to somehow get a left tackle. We have no business trading for or drafting a QB unless there's a capable LT to go along with him.

 

The book also changed my mind about Jason Peters, and how we maybe should have paid the guy. It also reinforced my belief that Dick Jauron along with the front office was vastly unprepared in their plan to replace him. And it makes me think that Turk S. was fired because he saw the coming colossal failure quite clearly and pushed the issue.

 

I encourage every football fan, especially those that think that finding a QB will fix all of our ills, to read the book.

[C.Biscuit97]

I didn't see The Blind Side movie, but I just finished the book. Since I didn't see the movie, I will say the book had a boatload of research and information on the evolution and importance of the LT position, how defensive and offensive philosophies have influenced the position. Definitely more football research and history than I expected.

 

The book isn't really about Michael Oher as much as it is about the Left Tackle position. I was expecting a puff piece about human drama -- you know, the Oprah Book Club kind of dreck -- but it was really a FOOTBALL book with a little human interest thrown in.

 

The result is it really confirmed for me that the only real choice Buffalo has is to somehow get a left tackle. We have no business trading for or drafting a QB unless there's a capable LT to go along with him.

 

The book also changed my mind about Jason Peters, and how we maybe should have paid the guy. It also reinforced my belief that Dick Jauron along with the front office was vastly unprepared in their plan to replace him. And it makes me think that Turk S. was fired because he saw the coming colossal failure quite clearly and pushed the issue.

 

I encourage every football fan, especially those that think that finding a QB will fix all of our ills, to read the book.

 

 

1) Peters isn't an elite LT. He's good but prone to penalties, injuries, and blown assignments. Peters was underrated then got overrated. There was nothing wrong with the trade but it was how we choose to replace him. Bell wasn't ready. If we drafted Oher, no one think twice about Peters.

 

2) Most people would struggle to name the last 4 starting LTs in the last 2 Super Bowls (Mike Gandy, Max Starks, bushrod, and Charlie Johnson). The LT position has become very overrated.

[Tortured Soul]

I encourage every football fan, especially those that think that finding a QB will fix all of our ills, to read the book.

 

 

2) Most people would struggle to name the last 4 starting LTs in the last 2 Super Bowls (Mike Gandy, Max Starks, bushrod, and Charlie Johnson). The LT position has become very overrated.

 

Todd, check out "Blindsided" by KC Joyner before jumping to any conclusions.

[BillsVet]

1) Peters isn't an elite LT. He's good but prone to penalties, injuries, and blown assignments. Peters was underrated then got overrated. There was nothing wrong with the trade but it was how we choose to replace him. Bell wasn't ready. If we drafted Oher, no one think twice about Peters.

 

2) Most people would struggle to name the last 4 starting LTs in the last 2 Super Bowls (Mike Gandy, Max Starks, bushrod, and Charlie Johnson). The LT position has become very overrated.

 

You're living in absolutes on Point 2. A LT supports the QB and vice versa. Each of those LT's played with arguably HOF QB's, who have a better feel for the pass rush than average QB's. It's no coincidence those teams didn't need a top LT.

 

For a team that has an average QB, getting a lock down LT can exponentially make the offense better, especially in the passing game. Peters needs proper motivation, but there's no doubt he has the skill set to be left on an island. Now I know some fans will cite the highest "sacks allowed" figure, but let's look at the cost to replace him:

 

-required the entire OL to be shifted, causing massive issues at LT and need for 2 guards as opposed to 1 in 09 Draft

-is forcing the team to use another first round pick on a LT.

 

Having Peters would mean not getting Wood, but they'd have a LT and could focus on taking a NT or pass rusher this year. When team's make mistakes, they tend to domino throughout the team.

 

As BADOL has pointed out, finding solid guards in Round 1 and 2 is not hard for a personnel department. So while the interior is better, the OT's are still a huge question mark.

[Thurman#1]

1) Peters isn't an elite LT. He's good but prone to penalties, injuries, and blown assignments. Peters was underrated then got overrated. There was nothing wrong with the trade but it was how we choose to replace him. Bell wasn't ready. If we drafted Oher, no one think twice about Peters.

 

2) Most people would struggle to name the last 4 starting LTs in the last 2 Super Bowls (Mike Gandy, Max Starks, bushrod, and Charlie Johnson). The LT position has become very overrated.

 

 

 

Peters really is an elite LT. Which is why Philly, a team that has been successful at putting together excellent OLs for the last 10 years paid more than$10 million per year for him and Buffalo, a team that has been unsuccessful at putting together even average OLs for the last ten years let him go.

 

Treating the trade and replacing Peters as two different things is missing the point. It's like treating jumping off the lip of the Grand Canyon and noticing on the way down that there's no net as two different things. Noticing that there's no net should be part of your decision process when you decide not to jump. If there's no net, you don't jump.

 

And Oher is a RIGHT TACKLE, not a left tackle.

[dgrid]

Having Peters would mean not getting Wood

just doesnt sound right...

 

 

Oher is a RIGHT TACKLE, not a left tackle.

for now

[Thurman#1]

You're living in absolutes on Point 2. A LT supports the QB and vice versa. Each of those LT's played with arguably HOF QB's, who have a better feel for the pass rush than average QB's. It's no coincidence those teams didn't need a top LT.

 

For a team that has an average QB, getting a lock down LT can exponentially make the offense better, especially in the passing game. Peters needs proper motivation, but there's no doubt he has the skill set to be left on an island. Now I know some fans will cite the highest "sacks allowed" figure, but let's look at the cost to replace him:

 

-required the entire OL to be shifted, causing massive issues at LT and need for 2 guards as opposed to 1 in 09 Draft

-is forcing the team to use another first round pick on a LT.

 

Having Peters would mean not getting Wood, but they'd have a LT and could focus on taking a NT or pass rusher this year. When team's make mistakes, they tend to domino throughout the team.

 

As BADOL has pointed out, finding solid guards in Round 1 and 2 is not hard for a personnel department. So while the interior is better, the OT's are still a huge question mark.

 

 

Nice post.

[DarthICE]

1) Peters isn't an elite LT. He's good but prone to penalties, injuries, and blown assignments. Peters was underrated then got overrated. There was nothing wrong with the trade but it was how we choose to replace him. Bell wasn't ready. If we drafted Oher, no one think twice about Peters.

 

2) Most people would struggle to name the last 4 starting LTs in the last 2 Super Bowls (Mike Gandy, Max Starks, bushrod, and Charlie Johnson). The LT position has become very overrated.

 

THANK YOU! I am so sick and tired of hearing how LT is so damn important. None of the guys you listed are probowlers, go figure. Hell Gandy was punt kicked from here and ran on a rail by the fans!

 

Look we can get a good LT in lower rounds, hell Nix has found a stud LT in SD in the 2nd round so it can be done! Until we have a damn good QB all else is moot point

[Cynical]

You're living in absolutes on Point 2. A LT supports the QB and vice versa. Each of those LT's played with arguably HOF QB's, who have a better feel for the pass rush than average QB's. It's no coincidence those teams didn't need a top LT.

 

Not to mention the OL as a unit is unique in football. The better job they do, the less you hear about them. Hot dogging and show boating does not lend itself to the OL (can you imagine the LT chest bumping the OC because they prevented a sack?)

 

For a team that has an average QB, getting a lock down LT can exponentially make the offense better, especially in the passing game. Peters needs proper motivation, but there's no doubt he has the skill set to be left on an island. Now I know some fans will cite the highest "sacks allowed" figure, but let's look at the cost to replace him:

 

-required the entire OL to be shifted, causing massive issues at LT and need for 2 guards as opposed to 1 in 09 Draft

-is forcing the team to use another first round pick on a LT.

 

Having Peters would mean not getting Wood, but they'd have a LT and could focus on taking a NT or pass rusher this year. When team's make mistakes, they tend to domino throughout the team.

 

As BADOL has pointed out, finding solid guards in Round 1 and 2 is not hard for a personnel department. So while the interior is better, the OT's are still a huge question mark.

[kota]

THANK YOU! I am so sick and tired of hearing how LT is so damn important. None of the guys you listed are probowlers, go figure. Hell Gandy was punt kicked from here and ran on a rail by the fans!

 

Look we can get a good LT in lower rounds, hell Nix has found a stud LT in SD in the 2nd round so it can be done! Until we have a damn good QB all else is moot point

 

I think you are wrong. When you have young QB's who haven't been in the league for very long you need a strong Oline especially LT.

 

Someone mentioned the following LT's for the past two superbowls. I am matching them with their QB's. These QB's are the best in the league and can overcome average LT's.

 

Mike Gandy -- Kurt Warner

Max Starks -- Big Ben

Bushrod -- Dree Brees

Charlie Johnson -- Peyton Manning.

 

When it comes to Rookie QB"s they will get killed if they don't have a good LT. There are always exceptions to the rule but generally speaking i think this is true.

[todd]

THANK YOU! I am so sick and tired of hearing how LT is so damn important. None of the guys you listed are probowlers, go figure. Hell Gandy was punt kicked from here and ran on a rail by the fans!

 

Look we can get a good LT in lower rounds, hell Nix has found a stud LT in SD in the 2nd round so it can be done! Until we have a damn good QB all else is moot point

 

I don't think I typed anywhere that we need to draft someone in the first round for LT. All I said was that without a LT, it doesn't matter what FA QB we pick up or who we draft.

 

Find me a rookie QB or one of the current vet FAs that could do well without a capable LT. Read my post again. C-A-P-A-B-L-E is the word I used to describe the LT the Bills need. It is often interchanged with words like competent and serviceable. I don't know how you got Pro-bowl out of that.

 

So an LT is very important, and your post is bunk.

[todd]

Todd, check out "Blindsided" by KC Joyner before jumping to any conclusions.

 

I will read it. I don't own a jump to conclusions mat.

[Thurman#1]

[Oher is a right tackle]

 

 

 

for now

 

 

 

And for the foreseeable future.

 

If you look at this link: http://profootballfocus.com/by_player.php?...p;playerid=4946

 

... you'll see that zero is average, and that Oher played at RT for 11 games and for those 11 games had an overall score of PLUS 13.6. Just counting the 13.6 as Oher's score would have made him 7th best tackle in the league. But if you assum that he would have played just as well in the other five games if he had played all sixteen games at RT, and just prorate that rate over the 16 games, his score would have been 19.8, which would have made him the #3 tackle in the league.

 

You'll also see that he played at LT for five games and his overall score was MINUS 9.1. Prorate that to a whole season at LT and you get a score of MINUS 29.1, which would have made him the second-worst tackle in the league.

 

This is the main reason that though many here figure that Gaither is available, it is highly highly unlikely.

[dgrid]

And for the foreseeable future.

 

If you look at this link: http://profootballfocus.com/by_player.php?...p;playerid=4946

 

... you'll see that zero is average, and that Oher played at RT for 11 games and for those 11 games had an overall score of PLUS 13.6. Just counting the 13.6 as Oher's score would have made him 7th best tackle in the league. But if you assum that he would have played just as well in the other five games if he had played all sixteen games at RT, and just prorate that rate over the 16 games, his score would have been 19.8, which would have made him the #3 tackle in the league.

 

You'll also see that he played at LT for five games and his overall score was MINUS 9.1. Prorate that to a whole season at LT and you get a score of MINUS 29.1, which would have made him the second-worst tackle in the league.

 

This is the main reason that though many here figure that Gaither is available, it is highly highly unlikely.

 

OK, I did assume they wanted to move him to LT, because of the Gaither thing.

[CosmicBills]

The result is it really confirmed for me that the only real choice Buffalo has is to somehow get a left tackle. We have no business trading for or drafting a QB unless there's a capable LT to go along with him.

I'm going to jump on you here, but it's not personal Todd ... it's just this one point I hear ALL the time on this board and it's so short sighted.

 

The NFL has become a QB driven league. You cannot win a championship without a franchise QB. It can't be done and hasn't been done in a decade. But you are 100% right that a QB needs a capable line to be of any use. They don't need to be 5 probowlers, but they need to be able to give the QB time. I'll give you, and everyone else clamoring for O-Line before QB that.

 

However, it is far easier to find a capable LT than it is to find a franchise QB. So, if the Bills honestly feel that one of the QBs in this draft is a franchise type QB they HAVE to get him BEFORE they get a LT. Even if it means trading up.

 

Why?

 

Because this team is REBUILDING. It doesn't matter how you get the pieces, just that you get them. And if a franchise QB is in this draft and you're within striking distance of getting him, you have to do it. Regardless of what your line is like. You can always fix the lines later in the draft or the first round next year. Either way, the Bills aren't going to be contending for a title until they get a QB.

 

Say for example the Bills traded up to get Bradford (they won't, but this is hypothetical) and gave up their 2nd round pick and maybe a 2nd next year to do so. People here would freak out because they have so many holes to fill. Well sure, but you can't argue that QB is the most important position on the field AND the team's biggest hole. The other complainers would argue that getting a franchise QB before the line is fixed will ruin his development -- this is also false. For two big reasons: 1. Just because you draft a QB this year doesn't mean he has to play this year and get killed. He can sit and learn (as we've said, the Bills aren't winning this year anyway) and 2. A good QB makes his line look better than it is (see: Indy, NE, NO).

 

Now, if the Bills don't feel there is a franchise QB in this draft, then I'm with you 100%. By all means, fix the lines, and use high picks to do so.

 

But to think you have to have a line before you have a QB is just illogical.

[kota]

2. A good QB makes his line look better than it is (see: Indy, NE, NO).

 

Once again i see this argument and it is filled with holes. How can you compare a rookie QB to guys who have been in the league over 8 years and are at the top of their game? That sir is illogicial.

 

A rookie QB will make a line look like ****. If you watch Brady, Brees or Manning they change the coverage on a given pass play based upon what the defense is doing. If they see a rush coming they change the coverage to give them more time to make a play. People get so hung up on Arm Strength and whatever but recognizing Defenses and shifting your offense to get around it makes a QB great. A rookie QB will not do this. they dont' have the experience or the knowledge yet.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

1) Peters isn't an elite LT. There was nothing wrong with the trade but it was how we choose to replace him. Bell wasn't ready. If we drafted Oher, no one think twice about Peters.

To the bolded: except for the part about having to spend a high draft pick to replace a player, in his prime, that was already on the roster.

 

This failure to retain core players is the reason the Bills have had to draft so many cornerbacks.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Todd, check out "Blindsided" by KC Joyner before jumping to any conclusions.

It is an interesting book, TS.

 

"Blindsided: Why the Left Tackle is Overrated and Other Contrarian Football Thoughts"

 

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Blindside...e/9780470124093

[BADOLBILZ]

1) Peters isn't an elite LT. He's good but prone to penalties, injuries, and blown assignments. Peters was underrated then got overrated. There was nothing wrong with the trade but it was how we choose to replace him. Bell wasn't ready. If we drafted Oher, no one think twice about Peters.

 

2) Most people would struggle to name the last 4 starting LTs in the last 2 Super Bowls (Mike Gandy, Max Starks, bushrod, and Charlie Johnson). The LT position has become very overrated.

 

3) Bill Belichick is not a better coach than Dick Jauron

 

 

You lost me when you insisted on #3 for 3+ years

[Max997]

the mistake wasnt trading Peters it was not drafting Oher

 

not drafting Oher was just a huge blunder by this organization..i guess it made too much sense for them, they traded their LT and had a replacement sitting there when they were on the clock that could step in and play from day one but instead this organization takes a project DE that they had no business taking

 

it kills me everytime i hear Oher's name

 

the Bills were right in trading Peters, he is a dog that just wanted to get paid and he certainly didnt earn that huge payday this year, anyone that watched him play could easily see that

[Celtic_soulja]

1) Peters isn't an elite LT. He's good but prone to penalties, injuries, and blown assignments. Peters was underrated then got overrated. There was nothing wrong with the trade but it was how we choose to replace him. Bell wasn't ready. If we drafted Oher, no one think twice about Peters.

 

2) Most people would struggle to name the last 4 starting LTs in the last 2 Super Bowls (Mike Gandy, Max Starks, bushrod, and Charlie Johnson). The LT position has become very overrated.

 

The Saints got lucky with Bushrod...he was a replacement for a two time probowler (Jammal Brown) and was surrounded by Three other probowlers in Stinchcomb, Evans, and Goodwin...then the fourth was an SN all rookie last season (Nicks)...so yeah maybe the LT wasn't a solidified thing...but Bushrod, anyone can argue that he had plenty of talented people around him helping out and even the Saints knew the importance of the position...

 

I've said this before and I'll say it again....Superbowl winners have two or more probowlers 9 out of 10 times on the OLine..and I am not just using the saying 9 out of 10 times...it's the stats of the last twenty years...only the Steelers in 2009 and the Bucs had less than two probowlers on thier starting offensive lines...now to your point, they all weren't probowl LT's...however, they work as a unit and if you have probowl veterans on the line it helps out LT's...they can help him out with a PB Guard etc...

[todd]

All I'm saying is you need both. The real idiots are those who think we can continue to ignore the line.

 

But to think you have to have a line before you have a QB is just illogical.

[C.Biscuit97]

You're living in absolutes on Point 2. A LT supports the QB and vice versa. Each of those LT's played with arguably HOF QB's, who have a better feel for the pass rush than average QB's. It's no coincidence those teams didn't need a top LT.

 

For a team that has an average QB, getting a lock down LT can exponentially make the offense better, especially in the passing game. Peters needs proper motivation, but there's no doubt he has the skill set to be left on an island. Now I know some fans will cite the highest "sacks allowed" figure, but let's look at the cost to replace him:

 

-required the entire OL to be shifted, causing massive issues at LT and need for 2 guards as opposed to 1 in 09 Draft

-is forcing the team to use another first round pick on a LT.

 

Having Peters would mean not getting Wood, but they'd have a LT and could focus on taking a NT or pass rusher this year. When team's make mistakes, they tend to domino throughout the team.

 

As BADOL has pointed out, finding solid guards in Round 1 and 2 is not hard for a personnel department. So while the interior is better, the OT's are still a huge question mark.

 

 

Our oline was bad in 2008 and it was over paid. We won 6 games with Peters and several at the beginning of the season were with him playing every other series because he was out of shape. We won 6 games this year without Peters.

 

The Eagles gave up 23 sacks in 2008 with 35 year old Tra Thomas at LT. They gave up 38 this season with Peters. Peters was credited with giving up 6.5. Thomas was credited with 2 in 2008.

 

Peters is not an elite LT. He didn't make or break our season. The Eagles acquired him and had a worse season. You really think it is a great idea to spend $10+ million on player that needs to be motivated?

 

The only problem with trading Peters was the backup plan to replace him. Either way, we're in a draft loaded with good OT prospects and I'd rather take my chances with them than paying an overrated, not smart, nagging injury having Peters.

[C.Biscuit97]

3) Bill Belichick is not a better coach than Dick Jauron

 

 

You lost me when you insisted on #3 for 3+ years

 

I lovei t when people take things completely out of context and use it the worng way. For one last time, I said that going into last season, Jauron had a better record to Belichick (pay attnetion here because apparently this confuses you) PRIOR to Brady starting.

 

Jauron's record going into 2009: 57-76 (43%) http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/JaurDi0.htm

 

Belichick's record prior to Brady (Bledsoe was injured in the 2nd game of the 2001 season): 41-57 (42%) http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/BeliBi0.htm

 

So no matter how you twist my words, it is a 100% fact.

[C.Biscuit97]

Todd, check out "Blindsided" by KC Joyner before jumping to any conclusions.

 

 

KC Joyner just relies on statistics to a fault. He had statistics that said JP Losman was a top 10 QB. He makes interesting points but statistics can only get you so far.

[C.Biscuit97]

the mistake wasnt trading Peters it was not drafting Oher

 

not drafting Oher was just a huge blunder by this organization..i guess it made too much sense for them, they traded their LT and had a replacement sitting there when they were on the clock that could step in and play from day one but instead this organization takes a project DE that they had no business taking

 

it kills me everytime i hear Oher's name

 

the Bills were right in trading Peters, he is a dog that just wanted to get paid and he certainly didnt earn that huge payday this year, anyone that watched him play could easily see that

 

 

I agree with your general point but there definitely were questions about Oher's work ethic and his ability to shift to the left side. He was the 23th overall player off the board and 4th OT.

 

But yeah, it looks pretty bad now. If we had Oher in addiiton to our other young guys, no one would give a crap about overrated Peters. I still think if we can get one of the top OTs in this draft (Okung or Bulaga mainly), I like our oline foundation better than the Eagles with Peters.

[JPS]

Peters really is an elite LT. Which is why Philly, a team that has been successful at putting together excellent OLs for the last 10 years paid more than$10 million per year for him and Buffalo, a team that has been unsuccessful at putting together even average OLs for the last ten years let him go.

 

Treating the trade and replacing Peters as two different things is missing the point. It's like treating jumping off the lip of the Grand Canyon and noticing on the way down that there's no net as two different things. Noticing that there's no net should be part of your decision process when you decide not to jump. If there's no net, you don't jump.

 

And Oher is a RIGHT TACKLE, not a left tackle.

I disagree with everything you said. Well, kinda. Peters is an elite talent, but he's injury prone and inconsistent. So, when he plays and feel like playing he IS elite. But that's not always the case, is it.

 

Oher is a RT like Jon Ogden was a guard. It's just what Baltimore does with lineman. He'll flop over and be a LT soon enough.

[John Adams]

I didn't see The Blind Side movie, but I just finished the book. Since I didn't see the movie, I will say the book had a boatload of research and information on the evolution and importance of the LT position, how defensive and offensive philosophies have influenced the position. Definitely more football research and history than I expected.

 

The book isn't really about Michael Oher as much as it is about the Left Tackle position. I was expecting a puff piece about human drama -- you know, the Oprah Book Club kind of dreck -- but it was really a FOOTBALL book with a little human interest thrown in.

 

The result is it really confirmed for me that the only real choice Buffalo has is to somehow get a left tackle. We have no business trading for or drafting a QB unless there's a capable LT to go along with him.

 

The book also changed my mind about Jason Peters, and how we maybe should have paid the guy. It also reinforced my belief that Dick Jauron along with the front office was vastly unprepared in their plan to replace him. And it makes me think that Turk S. was fired because he saw the coming colossal failure quite clearly and pushed the issue.

 

I encourage every football fan, especially those that think that finding a QB will fix all of our ills, to read the book.

 

That's the oddest review of the book I've ever seen. I read it too and it's 1 chapter (the first) about the importance of the left tackle and then the rest is almost entirely human interest. It is great human interest because the Oher story is really amazing but there is little "inside" football stuff after the first chapter. It's just about Oher overcoming a million obstacles and all the people who helped him.

 

I also didn't see the movie.

[todd]

If you have the book, check out the 5th chapter and the 9th chapter. The 2nd chapter is packed as well. Those are all about line play, not to mention the stuff sprinkled through the rest of the book. Not sure how long ago you read the book.

 

That's the oddest review of the book I've ever seen. I read it too and it's 1 chapter (the first) about the importance of the left tackle and then the rest is almost entirely human interest. It is great human interest because the Oher story is really amazing but there is little "inside" football stuff after the first chapter. It's just about Oher overcoming a million obstacles and all the people who helped him.

 

I also didn't see the movie.

[todd]

KC Joyner just relies on statistics to a fault. He had statistics that said JP Losman was a top 10 QB. He makes interesting points but statistics can only get you so far.

 

Interesting, now I've really got to read that book.

 

Statistics without context are useless, however if someone points me to a book about football, I'm all over it.