Controlling the LOS

[Cheddar's Dad]

This past week, I have been involved with others here in discussions about the importance of controlling the line of scrimmage and drafting a quality LG early next may. Some agree that a LG should be a priority pick. Others disagree saying the concept of controlling the LOS is over rated.

 

It may be informative to look at the way Nick Saban builds his teams at the University of Alabama. As you know, Saban led Alabama to three national championships in 2009, 2011, and 2012.

 

During this period of time a number of Alabama offensive linemen have been selected early in the NFL draft indicating they were important to the success of those championship teams. James Carpenter was selected in the first rd. by Seattle in 2009. Chance Warmack and J.D. Fluker went in the first round at picks 10 and 11 this past draft.

 

This year Alabama opened it's season with a contest vs. Virginia Tech. The game was close in the first half and TV commentations remarked about how good the Hokie defensive line looked against Alamama's offensive line. Running off the field after the first half, Saban was asked what his team needed to do in the second half. Saban sternly replied. "get comtrol of the Line of Scrimmage". His team did just that in the 2nd. half and won the game 35 - 10. Once again, Saban's team is ranked #1 and the favorite for another championship. LT Cyrus Kouandijo, a junior, is considred a first round pick should he declare. His brother Arie a junior LG and Anthony Steen a senior RG are also condidered NFL quality players.

 

What is Saban doing to insure future success? Looking at his 2014 high school recruits, Saban has 2 five star and 14 four star recruits among a total of 22 committed high school players. One of the two five star recruits is offensive lineman Cameron Rolinson, 6'6", 320. Four of his 14 4 star recruits are offensive linemen Jushua Cashier, 6'1", 300, J.C. Hassanauer, 6'3", 295, Ross Pierschbacher, 6'4", 295, and Dominick Jackson, 6'7", 312. To put it another way, 31% of his 2014 5 and 4 star recruits are offensive linemen. This is how a championship coach builds championship teams. Saban puts the highest priority on getting top quality offensive linemen.

 

 

 

 

[stony]

Meh. It's pretty easy to recruit to Alabama.

 

Not saying LOS isn't important (it is), but when you get the pick of the litter, it's pretty easy to dominate at the point of contact.

 

Easier said than done in the NFL.

Edited November 29, 2013 by stony

[Cheddar's Dad]

Not saying LOS isn't important (it is), but when you get the pick of the litter, it's pretty easy to dominate at the point of contact.

 

Easier said than done in the NFL.

 

Easier said than done in the NFL? Not really if you set controlling the LOS as a high priority.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I think Stony's saying that stockpiling talent in the NFL is different than stockpiling talent in the NCAA.

 

Drafting and recruiting are two very different animals.

 

NFL teams are not going to spend every high draft pick on O-linemen.

 

Let me add this thought, seeing as this topic seems to have spun off from a few other topics:

 

Who would people rather add to the Bills present roster?

 

1) All Pro guard Logan Mankins who was drafted 32nd overall by New England

 

2) All Pro tight end Rob Gronkowski who was drafted 42 overall by New England

 

This is a fair and unbiased question that relates to your subject.

 

I'm not for style over substance. I love winning the trenches. I said in another thread that I like that the Bills have a bias towards running "a bit too much" as opposed to not enough.

 

But I believe that having Gronk would have a much greater effect on team success than having Mankins.

 

JMO.

[thebandit27]

I think Stony's saying that stockpiling talent in the NFL is different than stockpiling talent in the NCAA.

 

Drafting and recruiting are two very different animals.

 

NFL teams are not going to spend every high draft pick on O-linemen.

 

Let me add this thought, seeing as this topic seems to have spun off from a few other topics:

 

Who would people rather add to the Bills present roster?

 

1) All Pro guard Logan Mankins who was drafted 32nd overall by New England

 

2) All Pro tight end Rob Gronkowski who was drafted 42 overall by New England

 

This is a fair and unbiased question that relates to your subject.

 

I'm not for style over substance. I love winning the trenches. I said in another thread that I like that the Bills have a bias towards running "a bit too much" as opposed to not enough.

 

But I believe that having Gronk would have a much greater effect on team success than having Mankins.

 

JMO.

 

Cheddar and I had a pretty thorough discussion of our views on this topic, so I'm certain that he doesn't need and wouldn't appreciate me rehashing my thoughts in full here...I'll just say that San Jose summed up my thoughts quite well here.

[Just in Atlanta]

You build a solid team around the trenches ... and QB. That said, a freakish talent like Gronk has a far bigger impact on success than a star OG ... or even two star OGs for that matter.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The game begins and ends in the trenches. It doesn't matter who your QB is if he's on his back, or worse yet, knocked out of the game with an injury.

 

Case-in-point, the Pittsburgh Steelers. Early in the year, their line was playinmg terribly. Runners had no lanes, and Ben had no time to make his reads, allow plays to develop, or move in the pocket.

Edited November 29, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[MDH]

Who thinks controlling the LoS isn't important? Of course it is. Now if you're saying you target O and DL before every other position just to accomplish this then you'll get some disagreement but I don't know of any football fan who doesn't think it's important.

[HamSandwhich]

Gonna be a little bit more difficult if Kyle Williams is out. Questionable due to his back.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

The game begins and ends in the trenches. It doesn't matter who your QB is if he's on his back, or worse yet, knocked out of the game with an injury.

 

It could just as easily be pointed out that the Packers were 5-2 with Aaron Rodgers and 0-4-1 without him, despite having injuries to 3 O-line starters.

 

In fact it's easily arguable that good QB play versus bad QB has as much if not more affect on O-line play that any other factor.

 

That's because the QB determines whether to audible into a more suitable play based on what the D is showing, the QB typically calls the protections, and the QB is the only player who can make sure that the ball is thrown on time.

 

Of course line play is important.

 

But as you said in another thread, it's not a black and white issue.

Edited November 29, 2013 by San Jose Bills Fan

[Cheddar's Dad]

I think Stony's saying that stockpiling talent in the NFL is different than stockpiling talent in the NCAA.

 

Drafting and recruiting are two very different animals.

 

NFL teams are not going to spend every high draft pick on O-linemen.

 

Let me add this thought, seeing as this topic seems to have spun off from a few other topics:

 

Who would people rather add to the Bills present roster?

 

1) All Pro guard Logan Mankins who was drafted 32nd overall by New England

 

2) All Pro tight end Rob Gronkowski who was drafted 42 overall by New England

 

This is a fair and unbiased question that relates to your subject.

 

I'm not for style over substance. I love winning the trenches. I said in another thread that I like that the Bills have a bias towards running "a bit too much" as opposed to not enough.

 

But I believe that having Gronk would have a much greater effect on team success than having Mankins.

 

JMO.

 

I disagree with much of what you wrote, San Jose. College teams have 25 scholarships that they can award to high school football players each year. So a college coach needs to make decisions regarding what positions to priortize. To build a solid O-line, both college Coach and pro GM need to priortize. In the case of the college Coach, he has to activly recruit. Saban's record indicated he activly recruits O-linemen to a greater extent than talent at other positions and he produces national champions. In the case of the pro GM, he must be the type that can ignore that flashy TE, WR, RB or whatever when he has positions to fill along the O-line. Many GMs can't do that and that inability explains why so many teams in the NFL have sub par O-lines. Atlanta, a team that the Atlanta staff expected to contend this year, has had a dismal year because they failed to realize they had deficiencies in their O-line. You can point to more than 16 teams within the 32 team NFL that have similar O-line issues. Those issues are a principle reason for the high level of mediocrity within the NFL.

 

Would I take a young Mankins over a young Gronk. Since the Bills has a competent TE in Chandler and nothing resembeling competency at LG, you bet I would.

[RyanC883]

As another poster stated, no one doubts the importance of a good OL. However, drafting an OL in the first round is risky. Both Fisher and Jockel are struggling this year. And, we all remember Mike Williams. Next year, I would draft Mack in the first round, Aaron Donaldson in the second (control D-line, and a fantastic rotation partner/future starter for the oft-injured Kyle Williams), then a Guard or CB in the third, then Guard or CB in the 4th. I think good value lineman can be found later in the draft. But amazing talents like Mack and Donaldson are harder to come by later in the draft.

[TakeYouToTasker]

It could just as easily be pointed out that the Packers were 5-2 with Aaron Rodgers and 0-4-1 without him, despite having injuries to 3 O-line starters.

 

In fact it's easily arguable that good QB play versus bad QB has as much if not more affect on O-line play that any other factor.

 

That's because the QB determines whether to audible into a more suitable play based on what the D is showing, the QB typically calls the protections, and the QB is the only player who can make sure that the ball is thrown on time.

 

Of course line play is important.

 

But as you said in another thread, it's not a black and white issue.

You'll note that you just made my point. Despite Rodger's ability to camouflage bad OL play; ultimately that line play wound up leading directly to the 0-4-1 record because their play led to the worst case senario in which they caused their star quarterback to become injured.

[Cheddar's Dad]

 

 

Cheddar and I had a pretty thorough discussion of our views on this topic, so I'm certain that he doesn't need and wouldn't appreciate me rehashing my thoughts in full here...I'll just say that San Jose summed up my thoughts quite well here.

 

I wouldn't mind hearing from you, Bandit. I think you're an intelligent fellow and enjoy reading your opinions.

 

I really didn't intend to rehash this subject again, but, you see, I now live in the Knoxville area having moved here from Buffalo three years ago. I'm now a UT fan and was looking at how the 2014 UT class of recruits stanks up against Alabama's. Rivals has Alabama #1 and UT #2. Then I looked at what the Alabama class consists of, saw the Alabama recruiting trend, and thought it worthy of discussion in this forum.

[mannc]

Who thinks controlling the LoS isn't important? Of course it is. Now if you're saying you target O and DL before every other position just to accomplish this then you'll get some disagreement but I don't know of any football fan who doesn't think it's important.

Of course having a strong OL is important, but the OL is comprised of five starters. An outstanding lineman, like Wood or Mankins, is undeniably valuable but they are just one piece. An outstanding receiver creates far more problems for the other team and can actually turn a mediocre QB into a good one. That's why teams who have the opportunity to draft one of those players (an AJ Green or a Julio Jones, for example) should do so, even if there is a potentially great offensive (or defensive) lineman available. That's one reason I have never believed in the "best player available" mantra in the first round. Positional value is critically important and is too often ignored by the Bills, and other teams, as well. Edited November 29, 2013 by mannc

[first_and_ten]

Atlanta, a team that the Atlanta staff expected to contend this year, has had a dismal year because they failed to realize they had deficiencies in their O-line. You can point to more than 16 teams within the 32 team NFL that have similar O-line issues. Those issues are a principle reason for the high level of mediocrity within the NFL.

 

 

Or could it be because they lost their two superstart recievers to injury? Also Gonzalez has been hobbled and they lost Steven Jacjson for 6 weeks.

[San-O]

Buffalo's O line has not graded well per Bills Daily, which is done by Steve Saslow.

 

 

http://www.billsdaily.com/gameday/

 

I counted the graded, some were missing, but some on this board seemed to think the O line is playing wel.. they have had a couple

good games but whole lot more poor.

 

B, F, C, C, D, D, A, F, A.

 

They need to draft O line in the first 3 rounds somewhere, IMO. Take a QB # 1 or # 2, or even # 3.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I disagree with much of what you wrote, San Jose. College teams have 25 scholarships that they can award to high school football players each year.

 

Would I take a young Mankins over a young Gronk. Since the Bills has a competent TE in Chandler and nothing resembeling competency at LG, you bet I would.

 

Still, 25 scholarships versus 7 draft picks?

 

Only the first 3 rounds of a draft can be considered premium picks as opposed to scholarshipped players who are all in the upper tier of recruits.

 

It's still easier to accumulate O-line talent in college than it is in the pros, IMO.

 

You'll note that you just made my point. Despite Rodger's ability to camouflage bad OL play; ultimately that line play wound up leading directly to the 0-4-1 record because their play led to the worst case senario in which they caused their star quarterback to become injured.

 

Arguably.

 

Anytime a quarterback gets hurt it can theoretically be blamed on the O-line I suppose.

 

I know on the play on which he was injured, he had flushed the pocket and was running upfield. It seems he was tackled high.

 

Arguably also, Rodgers should have slid and didn't protect himself well enough.

 

However I will agree that all things being equal a bad O-line leaves the QB more vulnerable to injury.

 

But I would still take Gronk over Mankins on the present-day Bills, even if they were the same age.

[Rockinon]

I disagree with much of what you wrote, San Jose. College teams have 25 scholarships that they can award to high school football players each year. So a college coach needs to make decisions regarding what positions to priortize. To build a solid O-line, both college Coach and pro GM need to priortize. In the case of the college Coach, he has to activly recruit. Saban's record indicated he activly recruits O-linemen to a greater extent than talent at other positions and he produces national champions. In the case of the pro GM, he must be the type that can ignore that flashy TE, WR, RB or whatever when he has positions to fill along the O-line. Many GMs can't do that and that inability explains why so many teams in the NFL have sub par O-lines. Atlanta, a team that the Atlanta staff expected to contend this year, has had a dismal year because they failed to realize they had deficiencies in their O-line. You can point to more than 16 teams within the 32 team NFL that have similar O-line issues. Those issues are a principle reason for the high level of mediocrity within the NFL.

 

Would I take a young Mankins over a young Gronk. Since the Bills has a competent TE in Chandler and nothing resembeling competency at LG, you bet I would.

I think we are thinking pretty much the same. I find it kind of funny how fans start salivating over sexy picks like pass catching tight ends. Then we like to go and find all kinds of statistics to back up our prognostications. There isn't anything sexy about OT. Statistics don't seem to do a very good job of determining how good an OT is. So fans like to do things like quote Bill Parcels who says he can find any old fat guy to plug a hole.

 

People love to see all of the flashy plays that skill players do on a regular basis in the NFL. And the offensive lineman just gets no respect even if he is the guy that protects the QB or springs a RB for a big gain. No matter how many flashy pieces you have if you don't build a foundation(IT BEGINS AT THE LINES) you aren't going anywhere.

[stony]

I disagree with much of what you wrote, San Jose. College teams have 25 scholarships that they can award to high school football players each year. So a college coach needs to make decisions regarding what positions to priortize. To build a solid O-line, both college Coach and pro GM need to priortize. In the case of the college Coach, he has to activly recruit. Saban's record indicated he activly recruits O-linemen to a greater extent than talent at other positions and he produces national champions. In the case of the pro GM, he must be the type that can ignore that flashy TE, WR, RB or whatever when he has positions to fill along the O-line. Many GMs can't do that and that inability explains why so many teams in the NFL have sub par O-lines. Atlanta, a team that the Atlanta staff expected to contend this year, has had a dismal year because they failed to realize they had deficiencies in their O-line. You can point to more than 16 teams within the 32 team NFL that have similar O-line issues. Those issues are a principle reason for the high level of mediocrity within the NFL.

 

Would I take a young Mankins over a young Gronk. Since the Bills has a competent TE in Chandler and nothing resembeling competency at LG, you bet I would.

 

But that's like saying Urbik is a competent G, so I'd pass on the Pro-Bowler in Mankins. I'd go for the guy who makes the largest impact on any given position. In this case it's Gronk IMO.

 

As for scholarships, coaches most certainly have to prioritize their recruits. But it's easy to prioritize when you have the appeal of an Alabama. They're talking to the 10 best players at their position and realistically have a shot at getting multiple players at each position. The Bills have 7-8 picks every year and would be lucky to get one premiere player at any position; therefore, it's tougher to build a winning football team in the pros especially if you allocate all of your resources to one area while negating others. Just my opinion.

 

I think we are thinking pretty much the same. I find it kind of funny how fans start salivating over sexy picks like pass catching tight ends. Then we like to go and find all kinds of statistics to back up our prognostications. There isn't anything sexy about OT. Statistics don't seem to do a very good job of determining how good an OT is. So fans like to do things like quote Bill Parcels who says he can find any old fat guy to plug a hole.

 

People love to see all of the flashy plays that skill players do on a regular basis in the NFL. And the offensive lineman just gets no respect even if he is the guy that protects the QB or springs a RB for a big gain. No matter how many flashy pieces you have if you don't build a foundation(IT BEGINS AT THE LINES) you aren't going anywhere.

 

Not really. I'd say respect is given to OTs given how they are one of the top paid positions in the league. OGs aren't being paid too shabby either. The Steelers and Packers have won the big one recently with horrible lines yet they both had one thing in common.

Edited November 29, 2013 by stony