Offensive line building theory

[bythenbrs]

6 hours ago, AU-panther said:

 

Let me preface this by saying I'm all for drafting a LT early this year, if we don't go QB, both need and value seem to be lining up well this year.   

Interesting exchange on twitter I saw between Daniel Jeremiah and one of the PFF guys regarding what makes a productive offensive line.  We are all caught up on this idea of an LT, which is understandable considering some of our history at that position, but even upgrading some of the other positions could have a tangible benefit.  

Here is a follow up tweet by Steve explaining what he means by "creep back toward average"

 

Having an elite LT by itself doesn't put points on the scoreboard, they do make it easier, but what is most important is having an overall offensive line that is good enough not to be a weakness.

I'm not convinced, even if we spend pick 8 on a LT, that our line is going to automatically become one of the best in the league.  Wouldn't bother me in the least if we spent multiple picks on the offensive line this year.

On a side note, fans always like to measure offensive lines by sacks given up.  Easy metric to notice when causally watching your team, but PFF loves to point out that sacks aren't just a offensive line stat.  Often. so much more goes into a sack than just how your offensive lineman does.  Your play caller, QB and receivers all factor in.

Play caller:  Good play calling can slow up pressure, certain systems don't need as much time.  Think Brady with the Pats.

QB:  Recognizing pressure, calling the correct protections, throwing to correct the read, getting the ball out quick.  How much easier is it to play OT for Brady?

Receivers:  Having a first read receiver that can consistently get open for your QB is huge.  How many sacks happen after the 1st and/or 2nd read of the QB?  What percentage of sacks that Cam took over his career were after his 1st read was covered?  People would be surprised.  

Speaking of receivers, this is one reason it wouldn't shock me if Cincy did pass on Sewell and took Chase.  I get the theory behind it, but I would still lean towards the OT.  I'm not saying OTs are more important, that is an entirely different discussion, but they do seem a lot harder to find both in the draft and free agency.  Some years you can't even buy one in free agency even if you are willing to spend the money. 

 

 

 

 

I find this theory offensive...

[Tbe]

12 minutes ago, Moo Daeng said:

The difference between 8 and say 15 is only about 5 million over 4 years. That is insignificant.

I’m thinking more about after the rookie deal. 

[jayboogieman]

22 minutes ago, Tbe said:

I’m thinking more about after the rookie deal. 

Those second contracts are based off their play and growth, not draft positions.

[Tbe]

6 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

Those second contracts are based off their play and growth, not draft positions.

I know. But the idea is, do you pay one guy top 5 LT money ($25 mill) or do you opt to keep two decent guys at $10-15 mill each. 

Does one pro bowl OL help you more than two above average guys? 

[pantherj]

As a fan I don't want Darnold to have excuses for playing poorly. That's part of the reason I want a better o-line. We can't evaluate any QB behind a poop o-line.

[Aussie Tank]

Don’t overthink it draft best LT available and be happy. 

[mrcompletely11]

12 minutes ago, Aussie Tank said:

Don’t overthink it draft best LT available and be happy. 

It’s really that simple.  We should have did it last year but hurney.  

[Agent Blue]

pretty simple.

sewell or slater at 8 assuming no QB you think is a franchise qb is left on the board. 

if sewell, slater and no QBs you like are there you consider trade back options. 

If no trade back options are great you draft the best player ie pitts, suritan, chase, horn, etc

[jayboogieman]

13 hours ago, Tbe said:

I know. But the idea is, do you pay one guy top 5 LT money ($25 mill) or do you opt to keep two decent guys at $10-15 mill each. 

Does one pro bowl OL help you more than two above average guys? 

You can make that same argument for every position except QB. I think it really comes down to how dominate the guy is. If I was a GM, I would rather have and pay a guy that rarely gives up a sack or pressure vs two guys that were decent and gave up several pressures and a few sacks each.

[Tbe]

27 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

You can make that same argument for every position except QB. I think it really comes down to how dominate the guy is. If I was a GM, I would rather have and pay a guy that rarely gives up a sack or pressure vs two guys that were decent and gave up several pressures and a few sacks each.

Sure, there are pros and cons to both. I’m just tired of the team collapsing after one or two of these top guys gets injured. Our depth (due in part to the cap) has been terrible in recent memory. 

How resilient a position group is (especially o line) is just as important has how dominant it is when healthy.

[Wes21]

29 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

You can make that same argument for every position except QB. I think it really comes down to how dominate the guy is. If I was a GM, I would rather have and pay a guy that rarely gives up a sack or pressure vs two guys that were decent and gave up several pressures and a few sacks each.

Offensive line is a bit of a different animal because they don't add much "value" as they get to the higher rankings of their position.  I call it the "point of competence."  For simplicity let's say the point of being competent is 5 out of 10.  If you have a guy below 5 it could almost single handedly cripple an offense.  The negative effect of being below the point of competence is noteworthy. 

Where offensive line is different is that once you get above the point of competence, you really don't gain all that much.  Your offense isn't going to change drastically if you upgrade from a 7 to a 9 at LT (for instance).  If you are going to improve an offensive line position, your money is MUCH better spent upgrading a 4 to a 6 than a 7 to a 9.  In the end an offensive lineman is only blocking 1 guy, with the possibility of chipping 1 additional guy.  And the defense largely gets to dictate who that guy is.  And once you've gotten to the point of competence across the board on the offensive line, move on to other spots on the team were upgrades mean more to overall performance.  I will never forget that there was a moment in time where one team had what was considered the best LT in the NFL, what was considered the best C in the NFL and what was considered the best RT in the NFL all at the same time.  That team was the Cleveland Browns and they were terrible.

[Tbe]

20 minutes ago, Wes21 said:

Offensive line is a bit of a different animal because they don't add much "value" as they get to the higher rankings of their position.  I call it the "point of competence."  For simplicity let's say the point of being competent is 5 out of 10.  If you have a guy below 5 it could almost single handedly cripple an offense.  The negative effect of being below the point of competence is noteworthy. 

Where offensive line is different is that once you get above the point of competence, you really don't gain all that much.  Your offense isn't going to change drastically if you upgrade from a 7 to a 9 at LT (for instance).  If you are going to improve an offensive line position, your money is MUCH better spent upgrading a 4 to a 6 than a 7 to a 9.  In the end an offensive lineman is only blocking 1 guy, with the possibility of chipping 1 additional guy.  And the defense largely gets to dictate who that guy is.  And once you've gotten to the point of competence across the board on the offensive line, move on to other spots on the team were upgrades mean more to overall performance.  I will never forget that there was a moment in time where one team had what was considered the best LT in the NFL, what was considered the best C in the NFL and what was considered the best RT in the NFL all at the same time.  That team was the Cleveland Browns and they were terrible.

And I will never forget that team that had a great C, LT, and two stud guards but lost in the SB because of one terrible right tackle.

[jayboogieman]

1 hour ago, Tbe said:

Sure, there are pros and cons to both. I’m just tired of the team collapsing after one or two of these top guys gets injured. Our depth (due in part to the cap) has been terrible in recent memory. 

How resilient a position group is (especially o line) is just as important has how dominant it is when healthy.

I get that. A lot of that problem was the previous regime ignoring the Oline or dumpster diving for players. Hopefully the new guys will do better.

1 hour ago, Wes21 said:

Offensive line is a bit of a different animal because they don't add much "value" as they get to the higher rankings of their position.  I call it the "point of competence."  For simplicity let's say the point of being competent is 5 out of 10.  If you have a guy below 5 it could almost single handedly cripple an offense.  The negative effect of being below the point of competence is noteworthy. 

Where offensive line is different is that once you get above the point of competence, you really don't gain all that much.  Your offense isn't going to change drastically if you upgrade from a 7 to a 9 at LT (for instance).  If you are going to improve an offensive line position, your money is MUCH better spent upgrading a 4 to a 6 than a 7 to a 9.  In the end an offensive lineman is only blocking 1 guy, with the possibility of chipping 1 additional guy.  And the defense largely gets to dictate who that guy is.  And once you've gotten to the point of competence across the board on the offensive line, move on to other spots on the team were upgrades mean more to overall performance.  I will never forget that there was a moment in time where one team had what was considered the best LT in the NFL, what was considered the best C in the NFL and what was considered the best RT in the NFL all at the same time.  That team was the Cleveland Browns and they were terrible.

I disagree. The Panthers have had guys that were below average, average, and maybe above average on the line. Those generally don't work out well for long, if they ever work out at all. You can't have all pro players at every position, but you can have good ones at the positions that matter most. The Oline is supposed to be part of that group of positions that matter most. Panther fans just haven't seen it treated as such in a decade or so.

[shaqattaq]

22 hours ago, Tbe said:

I’d almost rather trade down and pick up one or two more solid OL guys than take one really good OL guy.

Cheaper and better for the team in the long run.

IF we trade back, I hope it's to grab a teir 2 LT ( Radunz, Cosmi, Mayfield, Leatherwood, etc.)  and then double down with a G/C with the extra pick.