Lichtensteiger's knee scoped - What Shape is the O Line in?

[cowboykillerzRGiii]

This ranking is not a true cumulative ranking and is from a cite that boast about how they come up with outside the box type analysis. Which makes sense.... because it goes against almost all the other rankings.

Then they must be incorrect. Imagine! coming up with a different outcome than a fantasy football blogger? It boggles the mind.

The stats iru-bru provided were from a blogger........

Maybe I'm wrong but I think it's pretty telling that everything you can find puts the skins OL between 24-27 including sources such as nfl.com. I know the mods all support one another regardless of issue, but come on.

Blanket statements, like the two you just dropped, are pretty telling. I've seen the.mods duke it out probably harder then anyone...
The way different sources gauge an o line is up to the reader to take n what ever.manner they want to take it.
You say they are crap.
I say look at the 100+ rushing yard games they produced 3 of which without the best player on the whole line.
You might mention: The qb hits the qb sacks...
I'll counter look at the damn qb! Horrible vision, iceskates on in the pocket + happy feet = fail.

Add rgiii better vision paytenesque release time, and automatically overnight that same line is MUCH better.

So its in how you look at it, and you choose to loom at it with doomsday glasses where kos on here prefer the cup half full glasses. Either way not much is going to happen now a week before final rosters so let's hope for the best instead of pulling up bogus stats from "know it all" bloggers... Eh?

[Red_One43]

You're correct in that a lot of this is just the voicing of my frustrations due to the blatent disregard our FO has given to the OL over the years.

Well, OK. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, I guess, but I'm still not sure why you thought it was a good idea to do that venting as though it represented a rebuttal of anything I had written.

I agree that if we have our 5 starters for 16 games, we'll have a mediocre line,

Agree with whom? That's not my opinion. I think our offensive line (i.e., starters and backups when needed) will be mediocre this season. We are healthy going into the year in that our projected starters are ready to go. (I'm not counting Brown as I think he will be cut after his PUP status expires, effectively meaning he didn't make the team.)

Provided we have an average season so far as injuries are concerned — i.e., we stay relatively healthy and don't lose 2-3 guys for the whole season — I think we'll be middle-of-the-pack. That is not the same thing as saying we will need all 5 guys to start all 16 games if we are to have any hope of being mediocre. See?

And this unit also has the potential to show flashes of top-10 performances for stretches at a time, like they did at the end of last year. I am less confident that they will do this, but it's not unlikely.

That's my view, which is substantially different than anything I've seen you say.

As such, I will stick to my statement that because of this, we need to DRAFT core OL and use the FA for reserves.

Well the best NFL teams all disagree with you on this point, as I showed in my last post. Go ahead and look them all up: right now I'm not sure there's a single team that doesn't have at least one starter acquired through FA. Using FA only for reserves is a blockheaded strategy that would harm a team, not help it.

But if you soften this position to say that teams should generally draft the players they want on their OL, then I agree. And Bruce Allen agrees too, actually, which is why Trent Williams was the first draft choice of the current FO. That's also why we've taken six linemen in this FO's three drafts, including our first pick one year and our second pick another. As a result, we have better starters and much better depth than we did in Zorn's second season here. It's a work in progress.

Remember that Allen's only been here for three seasons; it's unfair to criticize him for Cerrato's mistakes, which is what you are clearly doing.

Check out this Thread Trends Found in Play-off Team's Offensive Lines. LINK You will find that FA O linemen especially undrafted FA's are a key to all O lines.

[Irn-Bru]

There's more, but thought you got the idea. Nice try though.

You asked; I answered. I haven't scoured the web for sources that agree with me.

Fantasy football rankings, by the way, are not my idea of assessing how well a line has played. They are all going to say the same thing because FF assesses points in standard ways, so you can pull 1 source or 20 and it won't make much difference to me.

Some random moron's personal rankings on "Bleacher" "Report" doesn't impress me either.

For NFL.com, you just pulled up the stats on sacks. I freely admit that we were much worse in pass protection than in run blocking. But offensive line performance is judged on balance, and even within sacks allowed there is more to figuring out who is to blame.

The remaining links to Pro Football Focus and Advanced NFL Stats — the only interesting links you provided — I do respect, though I disagree with their conclusions. I've also seen them before.

"Nice try, though."

[Irn-Bru]

The stats iru-bru provided were from a blogger........

No, they were from an advanced stats site. These guys literally make their living off trying to bring NFL statistics out of the stone age.

You should check out FO, by the way. I think you'd like it.

I know the mods all support one another regardless of issue, but come on.

Aside from your mistake in saying JSPB is a mod, this statement is demonstrably untrue.

[Irn-Bru]

Check out this Thread Trends Found in Play-off Team's Offensive Lines. LINK You will find that FA O linemen especially undrafted FA's are a key to all O lines.

Oh, yes, I do remember that thread. Very helpful analysis. Thank you for reposting the link!

[Irn-Bru]

Lastly, here is the quote:
I stated: "As such, I will stick to my statement that because of this, we need to DRAFT core OL and use the FA for reserves".
Your response: "Well the best NFL teams all disagree with you on this point, as I showed in my last post."

Hmm. So we had this exchange, which I've pasted together from multiple posts:

Everyone also knows that franchises don't let their solid OL starters go unless: (1) their old, (2) they want too much money, or (3) they have "issues".

I'd be willing to bet that there are very few, if any, NFL teams without an FA starting on the line. The best teams / offensive lines have them, at any rate, which is proof enough of the ridiculousness of this argument.

As such, I will stick to my statement that because of this, we need to DRAFT core OL and use the FA for reserves.

Well the best NFL teams all disagree with you on this point … right now I'm not sure there's a single team that doesn't have at least one starter acquired through FA. Using FA only for reserves is a blockheaded strategy …. But if you soften this position to say that teams should generally draft the players they want on their OL, then I agree.

And then this is how you sum up what I said?

I am not sure how you can state that most NFL teams don't draft their best OL and instead opt to acquire via FA.

Come on, you have to admit it's funny how much of a caricature that is.

[Red_One43]

Check out this Thread Trends Found in Play-off Team's Offensive Lines. LINK You will find that FA O linemen especially undrafted FA's are a key to all O lines.

Oh, yes, I do remember that thread. Very helpful analysis. Thank you for reposting the link!

You're welcome!

[Deadskins]

Come on, you have to admit it's funny how much of a caricature that is.

OK, OK, I admit it.

Happy now?

[markshark84]

Lastly, here is the quote:
I stated: "As such, I will stick to my statement that because of this, we need to DRAFT core OL and use the FA for reserves".
Your response: "Well the best NFL teams all disagree with you on this point, as I showed in my last post."

Hmm. So we had this exchange, which I've pasted together from multiple posts:

Everyone also knows that franchises don't let their solid OL starters go unless: (1) their old, (2) they want too much money, or (3) they have "issues".

I'd be willing to bet that there are very few, if any, NFL teams without an FA starting on the line. The best teams / offensive lines have them, at any rate, which is proof enough of the ridiculousness of this argument.

As such, I will stick to my statement that because of this, we need to DRAFT core OL and use the FA for reserves.

Well the best NFL teams all disagree with you on this point … right now I'm not sure there's a single team that doesn't have at least one starter acquired through FA. Using FA only for reserves is a blockheaded strategy …. But if you soften this position to say that teams should generally draft the players they want on their OL, then I agree.

And then this is how you sum up what I said?

I am not sure how you can state that most NFL teams don't draft their best OL and instead opt to acquire via FA.

Come on, you have to admit it's funny how much of a caricature that is.

I provided my response based on what you quoted from me and what your response was. I did not pick and choose sentences from our prior exchanges. If you wanted to be more clear, you should have. If that is not your opinion, that is fine, but I don't see -- based on that initial quote above between the two of us -- how my conclusion couldn't have been formulated (arg. double negatives....). I don't see taking bits and pieces of a rather long and at time different exchange and manipulating them as if it were one single conversation as constructive. Perhaps you have been in DC too long......

And in terms of the OL rankings --- first, your cite is a stats site run by a couple guys in college. I could have just as much "created" a stats cite just like that (yes, much like the blogs, basically everything but the NFL stuff). They can call themselves anything they want, but I see them as a blog. Second, I believe all rankings are going to be different due to the subjectivityt that goes into evaluating OL. That said, the reason I provided the blogs and other data was to show that almost everyone ranks the skins OL in a position within a couple points of one another. I saw your ranking as an outlier -- being that is was 15 points differnet than the average.

[markshark84]

Check out this Thread Trends Found in Play-off Team's Offensive Lines. LINK You will find that FA O linemen especially undrafted FA's are a key to all O lines.

Oh, yes, I do remember that thread. Very helpful analysis. Thank you for reposting the link!

You're welcome!

I'm actually happy you posted that. It shows that most of the upper tier teams had around 3 players drafted from their particular team. The others were fitted in via FA. That is what I am trying to say. You build your line from the draft and fill in the pieces via FA. A franchise doesn't have enough picks to fully outfit their entire 9 man line via the draft and still focus on other needs.

[markshark84]

This ranking is not a true cumulative ranking and is from a cite that boast about how they come up with outside the box type analysis. Which makes sense.... because it goes against almost all the other rankings.

Then they must be incorrect. Imagine! coming up with a different outcome than a fantasy football blogger? It boggles the mind.

The stats iru-bru provided were from a blogger........

Maybe I'm wrong but I think it's pretty telling that everything you can find puts the skins OL between 24-27 including sources such as nfl.com. I know the mods all support one another regardless of issue, but come on.

Blanket statements, like the two you just dropped, are pretty telling. I've seen the.mods duke it out probably harder then anyone...
The way different sources gauge an o line is up to the reader to take n what ever.manner they want to take it.
You say they are crap.
I say look at the 100+ rushing yard games they produced 3 of which without the best player on the whole line.
You might mention: The qb hits the qb sacks...
I'll counter look at the damn qb! Horrible vision, iceskates on in the pocket + happy feet = fail.

Add rgiii better vision paytenesque release time, and automatically overnight that same line is MUCH better.

So its in how you look at it, and you choose to loom at it with doomsday glasses where kos on here prefer the cup half full glasses. Either way not much is going to happen now a week before final rosters so let's hope for the best instead of pulling up bogus stats from "know it all" bloggers... Eh?

I agree that it is all in how you look at it. I know that people here prefer the cup half full. I am objective and try to see things as such. I see the half cup full with RGIII our RBs, LBs, DL, WRs, TEs... I don't see it where I believe we have issues -- that could hamper the development of the biggest investment the skins have made in a long time -- such as on our OL.

I also agree that nothing will happen this year with the line. I am just voicing my opinion, much like I did for years during the Jason Campbell era when basically everyone except for RaynAustin would argue against me in support of JC (providing excuses that it was the OL, OC, etc. --- much like you are currently doing for the OL). I focus on things that can be improved upon. I agree that we should hope for the best, but I don't want expectations of the best to come with it.

[SkinsJock]

expectations vary - I think the O line is a huge concern but guess what - we are not exactly ready to be a contender here

Mike will have the OC and the coaches do what they can with what they have - this is not about winning the NFC East - this is about getting better and preparing for the future

This QB will not be allowed to make risky plays or risk injury - we just need to keep improving and get better - THAT we are doing

The offensive line is not great but they are going to be able to get us through this season

Many here do not understand and fully appreciate how great a QB we have - they will see that soon and understand that the future is now but it will take time

we were a complete mess a short time ago and now we're seeing the results of good management and planning

enjoy the ride

[Deadskins]

we are not exactly ready to be a contender here

Sure we are. With RGIII at the helm, we would have been a contender last year.

This QB will not be allowed to make risky plays or risk injury

Not be allowed? Just exactly how do you propose they inforce that? Are they going to bench him?

[Irn-Bru]

I provided my response based on what you quoted from me and what your response was. I did not pick and choose sentences from our prior exchanges. If you wanted to be more clear, you should have.

OK. I'll try a little harder in the future.

And in terms of the OL rankings --- first, your cite is a stats site run by a couple guys in college. I could have just as much "created" a stats cite just like that (yes, much like the blogs, basically everything but the NFL stuff). They can call themselves anything they want, but I see them as a blog.

You have no idea what you are talking about, dude. My advice would have been that you do a little research on FO before declaring it's a "blog" "cite" run by a couple of guys in college. These guys get cited (btw, you "cite" something as evidence, but referring to a website it's "site," not "cite") by the pros. And they aren't in college -- this is how the guys who run the site make their living (and have for years).

I don't agree with everything they say, but they are big guns when it comes to statistical analysis. That doesn't mean other people can't disagree (for example I like Advanced NFL Stats, which you mentioned), but to link to 50 fantasy football blogs and then say FO must be crazy because they are so far from the "average" ranking . . .

If you poke around there you can see the formulas they use and why they use them. I'm serious, you should follow that site for a while. I think you'd like it.

[markshark84]

I provided my response based on what you quoted from me and what your response was. I did not pick and choose sentences from our prior exchanges. If you wanted to be more clear, you should have.

OK. I'll try a little harder in the future.

And in terms of the OL rankings --- first, your cite is a stats site run by a couple guys in college. I could have just as much "created" a stats cite just like that (yes, much like the blogs, basically everything but the NFL stuff). They can call themselves anything they want, but I see them as a blog.

You have no idea what you are talking about, dude. My advice would have been that you do a little research on FO before declaring it's a "blog" "cite" run by a couple of guys in college. These guys get cited (btw, you "cite" something as evidence, but referring to a website it's "site," not "cite") by the pros. And they aren't in college -- this is how the guys who run the site make their living (and have for years).

I don't agree with everything they say, but they are big guns when it comes to statistical analysis. That doesn't mean other people can't disagree (for example I like Advanced NFL Stats, which you mentioned), but to link to 50 fantasy football blogs and then say FO must be crazy because they are so far from the "average" ranking . . .

If you poke around there you can see the formulas they use and why they use them. I'm serious, you should follow that site for a while. I think you'd like it.

First, I really don't care about the "cite" vs. "site" thing. Although not a journalist or anything of the sort, I basically write memos for a living. I consider coming to this forum as a release. I just type and hit submit. I have to edit enough. This is a web forum; spelling, grammar, etc. shouldn't matter or something a poster is judged upon.

Secondly, you are correct about the FO website. They are definetely more than a blog in that they perform some pretty high level and outside the box stat analysis. But the website and professionalism are not great. But I will definetely dive deeper into the cite. Regardless, I still hold to my guns about rankings and FO being an outlier.

[Red_One43]

Need to Know: O-line problems are an NFL epidemic

Redskins aren’t the only team with O-line issues

In today’s Sunday Blitz on the National Football Post, Dan Pompei discusses the state of offensive line play in the today’s NFL.

As I went through my tour of training camps, it struck me how one theme was constant wherever I went: offensive line play is a concern. Every team had some sort of issue up front on offense. I don’t believe there is a coaching staff in the league that is completely comfortable with its offensive line.

There is no question line play has deteriorated in recent years. Neither individual linemen nor offensive line units are what they used to be.

Pompei quotes Mike Shanahan one position that has been a sore spot for the Redskins for a number of years.

“Everybody says we don’t have a good right tackle,” said Shanahan. “I say show me who does?”

One interesting reason for offensive line issues cited in the article is the lack of continuity. Only two NFL teams are expected to start the same five players in the same five offensive line positions this year as they did last year.

Other factors cited were the use of the spread offense by so many college programs, leading to linemen coming into the league who have never had to hold a block for more than a second or two, and the shortened offseason program, which leads to poor technique.

As already pointed out by many on this thread, the Skins drafted three Offensive lineman. The problem is not lack of O lineman. As Pompei said continuity is one of the issues. On Week 1 game day, the Skins will have continuity in its starting 5.

The full Pompei article link:

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/NFP ... witterfeed

[Red_One43]

Offensive Tackles Drafter in 2012

*Tackles are drafted in the late rounds.

**Few tackles are drafted - lUDFAs get picked up - UDFA play a big role

*Same trend - guards and centers.

***Point: Shanny is builds O line like almost all NFL Teams

_Sometimes this happens: The Forty-Niners drafted two first round O linemen in 2010.

_Shanny didn't have the big bucks for FA Carl Nicks, but even if he did, he doesn't go after big guards like Nicks (Bucs got him).

_If Shanny sees an O lineman he likes and can afford him, he goes after him as evidence by his claim on C/G Cody Wallace (Bucs got him). Notice that Shanny likes the versatile guys.

-Shanny's O philosophy dictates his prioritites.

-This is clearly not the FO prior to Shanny, why keep claiming that the Redskins are not addressing the O line? The evidence says we are.

Gaurds - Link

Centers - Link

[Red_One43]

Check out this Thread Trends Found in Play-off Team's Offensive Lines. LINK You will find that FA O linemen especially undrafted FA's are a key to all O lines.

Oh, yes, I do remember that thread. Very helpful analysis. Thank you for reposting the link!

You're welcome!

I'm actually happy you posted that. It shows that most of the upper tier teams had around 3 players drafted from their particular team. The others were fitted in via FA. That is what I am trying to say. You build your line from the draft and fill in the pieces via FA. A franchise doesn't have enough picks to fully outfit their entire 9 man line via the draft and still focus on other needs.

I agree with what you are saying above, but this is what Shanny is currently doing. His first year, he drafted his stud LT and grabbed whoever else he could get with the few picks he had. The next year was a surprise when he only took one late round guy, but drafting is also about guys that fit. We don't know if the guys he wanted for O line weren't available when he wanted to get him. Remember, don't reach in a draft. The third draft, this year, he picked up three lineman in the range that most teams pick them. If you compare who hie protege, Kubiak, picked up and say Kubiak picked the better prospects, you would have a good argument, because the scouts agree with you.

My point - criticize him for who he is picking, but not that he isn't addressing the O line.

[Red_One43]

Keim's Thoughts on the O Line

Jordan Black also falls into the same category as Briscoe. He looked better than anyone else trying to be the backup swing tackle. Doesn’t mean he looked great, but based on camp and the games he was going to be the pick. Willie Smith improved the last couple weeks – but he looked dreadful early on — so it’s telling that he was still released. Black at least looked better than Sean Locklear last summer. Still, it’ll be interesting to see if Black has to play, having been out of the game last season and still only around 285 pounds.

…I was mildly surprised that fifth-round Adam Gettis made the roster. Based on his play he looked more suited for the practice squad; got moved around a bit much. He has a strong lower body, but there were times when he played too upright. Or he’d have his hands too low and the defender would get their hands inside. Struggled on cut blocks vs. starters. I’m curious to see how he develops because I’ve heard good things and did see good fundamentals. It’s clear the Redskins thought they’d lose him if they exposed him to waivers. Can’t imagine he’ll be active barring injuries.

…Third-rounder Josh LeRibeus also wasn’t a camp standout, but he can play guard and center and he didn’t look nearly as lost in the final preseason game as he did in the first. I’d be wary of him playing early, but, again, barring injuries that won’t happen. Maurice Hurt is the first backup at guard and he looked better than LeRibeus. Talked to one NFL evaluator who liked what they saw in Hurt this summer; thought he had improved.

…Is the line depth really better? Hurt was a reserve in 2011 and he’s improved; Gettis and LeRibeus have more potential than Erik Cook and Black is better than Locklear. So yes it is. The single biggest thing the Redskins’ line needs is cohesion among the starters. That alone will help them improve.

[Irn-Bru]

I'd say overall our depth has gotten better. However, if our RT goes down, we are in more trouble this year than we were last year.

Next year we can expect the Skins to acquire 1-2 starters plus a bit more depth. Then we will really be competing, IMHO.

[Red_One43]

I'd say overall our depth has gotten better. However, if our RT goes down, we are in more trouble this year than we were last year.

Next year we can expect the Skins to acquire 1-2 starters plus a bit more depth. Then we will really be competing, IMHO.

Last year, at this time, if RT or LT went down, Locklear went in, even with Black, we are in better shape today than at this time last year, wouldn't you say?

Now, if Black is better and buy us some time, wouldn't you say that Compton is on track to be as good if not better than Willie Smith last year?

Also, let's say Kory can play day 1 at LG, that means Hurt can concentrate on RT. Don't know if he is any good, but he must have shown something to warrant putting him there. He will have time to develop and if Kory can't play, Hurt has held his own and LeRibeus can develop to his potential.

Definitlely not trying to paint things as rosey posye here, because we did struggle when the injuries first occured. That could happen again and cost us a few games, buuut, that RGIII quick release will come in handy.

[Red_One43]

^here I am talking about how we are better off with Black being our swing tackle this year than having Locklear last year and I read this:

Locklear will start at left tackle for the Giants against the Cowboys in the regular-season opener, according to the Star-Ledger.

Like Don Pompei said in the article posted earlier, we aren't the only team with O line issues.

[Irn-Bru]

Wow.

[1niksder]

^here I am talking about how we are better off with Black being our swing tackle this year than having Locklear last year and I read this:

Locklear will start at left tackle for the Giants against the Cowboys in the regular-season opener, according to the Star-Ledger.

Like Don Pompei said in the article posted earlier, we aren't the only team with O line issues.

S. Capers is his backup

[SouthLondonRedskin]

In summary, IF we stay injury free across the line then we may well get away with it....

IN SHANNY WE TRUST!