Offensive Line Theory #245

[KYPack]

That whole Starcaps deal will filter up into the ozone, I guess.

I always thought that was a bum deal, but I hoped the Vikings would get royally fucked by it!

[Waldo]

Every team in the league wants 5 (or more) offensive lineman that are 6'5", 315 lb, can run about a 5.0 flat 40, run cones in the mid 7's, run a shuttle in the mid 4's, have 34"+ arms, and can put up 30+ reps, are very smart, and have outstanding balance. Guys like this can play all 5 positions at an elite level, and execute any blocking scheme.

Problem is, these guys are scarce, you might get a guy or two in a good year that measures out like that that comes from a big program and can ball. Jason Smith was the closest last year.

To build a line then, what kind of trade offs are you willing to make? Need the power over everything? Less ideal prospects can be a little bigger, especially at G, and don't need to be as athletic. Need the athleticism? You'll have to sacrifice size if you can't get your hands on an ideal prospect.

The sacrifices determine where they play. Shorter arms can get by at G and still play elite, as well as shorter guys. Shorter and lighter guys do well at C, as long as they have the athleticism. The close but not good enough athletes make better G's, and can get even better then by getting bigger. Close on just about everything but 1 key item, stick 'em on the right.

The last two years Ted has gotten his hands on two guys very close to the overall OL ideal. Sitton and Lang's arms are a little short, and each is a hair short, but that is about it. Both have the size and the athleticism. It just so happens that they came from small schools and were a little overlooked. Sitton was invited to nothing, neither the combine nor any of the all star games.

This was said immediately after the Sitton pick by a major Packer blog:

The Green Bay Packers select Central Florida T Josh Sitton. This is a reach as Sitton was not highly rated by New Era Scouting or Rivals.com . But if the guy works out, that doesn't matter except the Packers could have still taken Sitton in the 7th round and taken someone more highly regarded in this spot.

TJ Lang is the exact same way, except that he was invited to an all star game (Shrine game I believe)(not the combine), and was known because of Larry English. First rounder pass rusher tape gets around, and Lang had faced English multiple times. Lang was an extremely similar prospect to Sitton though. Sitton was RT (for a LH QB I believe), and Lang was LT.

If either Lang or Sitton would have went to Alabama or USC, they would have been 1st-2nd rounders. Each has pro bowl OG measurables, right there with Mack, Wood, and Unger (I understand that they were C's, but college G's aren't drafted too often, most pro G's were C's or T's in college). It is typical draft day talkingheadspeak to call all small school prospects raw, but Sitton and Lang have been pretty good from the start.

Last year when I went through the all draft eligible prospects, I made a list of all the prospects that had the athleticism (I was looking for a <7.6 3C, and a <4.6 SS, or close) and were close to or greater than 310 and 6'4" or taller.

Who I got:
J. Smith - Closest to ideal
M. Oher - Dumb
A. Mack - Not ideally athletic, not great balance
E. Wood - Not great balance
M. Unger - Short arms
S. Vollmer - Small school, back injury history
T. Lang - Small school, short arms
J. Bell - Small school, not great balance, dumb
L. Murtha - Very tall, very injury prone, underachiever
J. Valdez - Played OG, short arms, underachiever

Incidentally, the first OL off the board, the top 2 LT's drafted (by play), the top 3 C's (all 3 were day 1 starters, 2 of them at G), and 4 other guys. 3 first rounders, 3 second rounders, and 4 other dudes. Of the 4 other guys, we got Lang, none of the others were drafted, Bell was cut and is a free agent, Murtha made the Dolphins as an UDFA, and Valdez is on the Falcon's PS.

That exact same criteria would have also picked out Sitton, Spitz, Coston, Moll. Barbre, Colledge, and Giacomini were light, Meredith wasn't as athletic and was small.

I don't think that Ted is looking for a different model of player, I just think that he hasn't been in a position to draft ideal guys. In the '08 draft there was nothing after our first pick until Sitton, in '07 again there was nothing around our picks, Barbre was light but crazy athletic, he got the closest he could in '06 around our picks. Good big boys are rare, on both sides of the ball. Especially when you take the tape approach with a grain of salt and use the stopwatch and ruler approach with the tape approach.

Ted has never passed on a close to ideal OL prospect in the current tier, and has reached a tier for a couple others (if using the standard elite, 1st rd ish, 2-3 rd ish, 4th-5th rd ish, 6+ tier system).

[RashanGary]

Waldo, I think you're one of hte most unique, interesting posters out there. I've learned a lot from you.


I don't know that the draft is exact of a science as you sometimes make it out to be. Andre Smith, for example, didn't meet your criteria, yet there were SEVERAL sec standout DL that, when asked, said Andre Smith was the best player they've played against.

For some reason, I'll take 4 or 5 star defenders that have played him and madly respect him over a few numbers.

Head-case aside, I think Andre Smith is the most talented lineman drafted last year (more talented than Jason Smith or BJ Raji) based on what people who played him think. Of course, I don't put in the research or time that you do so I could very well be wrong.

More than any number you gave, I had my own reason to love the Sitton pick two years ago. Unlike Patrick Lee and Jeremy Thompson who Thompson said were good athletes (fit yoru descriptions), Thompson had a different sort of praise for Sitton. He said, "he get's his block". With Nelson he said, "He catches the ball and makes things happen with the ball".

Guys who make it happen on the field; Jordy Nelson (not explosive enough), Andre Smith, Ray Rice, Kenny Britt (big fan of last year), Curtis Lofton (too slow), Bob Sanders (too small), etc. . . Those guys are the guys who will be good players. You can try to narrow it down with numbers, but I don't think it does much. I woudl start with game tape and then barely change that after the numbers come out and maybe rely a little more on the numbers for small school guys or guys that haven't played a lot like Matthews.

[rbaloha1]

The zbs requires different type of o-linemen. Agility and athleticism are rated higher than prototypical NFL o-line size (recall the Alex Gibb lines from the Broncos super bowl years)

Colledge fit the zbs criteria but thats where it ends. Inconsistent play means Colledge should not be resigned.

The Packers are running more power stuff -- Sitton and Colledege fit the mold -- assignment sure and tough.

[RashanGary]

1a. Game tape
1b. Coaches and peers praise
1c. Character (all different types of good guys, but not lazy or a criminal)






2. Combine numbers





If you find great players that are praised high and low by those who coached them and played against them, the measurables have a funny way of working out.

[Smidgeon]

The zbs requires different type of o-linemen. Agility and athleticism are rated higher than prototypical NFL o-line size (recall the Alex Gibb lines from the Broncos super bowl years)

Colledge fit the zbs criteria but thats where it ends. Inconsistent play means Colledge should not be resigned.

The Packers are running more power stuff -- Sitton and Colledege fit the mold -- assignment sure and tough.

Care to clarify?

[cheesner]

1a. Game tape
1b. Coaches and peers praise
1c. Character (all different types of good guys, but not lazy or a criminal)






2. Combine numbers





If you find great players that are praised high and low by those who coached them and played against them, the measurables have a funny way of working out.

Not sure you can trust coaches. The more kids that get drafted, the better their program looks - the better their recruiting will go.

There are so many variables to look at:
1. Is the player being used wrong
2. Is the player getting the proper coaching
3. Is the player behind developmentally because of better players in front of him, injury, etc.

All these things will distort tape.

Plain and simple, the combine numbers are a excellent gage on how athletic a player is. Athleticism is an important component to a players success in the NFL. Many coaches and GMs realize that you can't teach athleticism or heart, but all the other aspects of a player, you can.

[Waldo]

1a. Game tape
1b. Coaches and peers praise
1c. Character (all different types of good guys, but not lazy or a criminal)






2. Combine numbers





If you find great players that are praised high and low by those who coached them and played against them, the measurables have a funny way of working out.

You may think so, but Ted doesn't.

Raji has one of the highest size:speed ratios of any DT to come out this decade (T Harris and K Williams are slightly higher)

Matthews ran one of the fastest 10 yd splits ever clocked for a 240+ lb person, at any position. Incidentally, Ted did draft the fastest 230+ lb person ever clocked, Deshawn Wynn.

Allen Barbre's combine workout was legendary good.

I picked out Lang as TT's target a month before the draft, simply with his workout #'s.

Ted has never taken a CB shorter than 6'0", or one that ran >4.49.

Nick Collins is one of the fastest S's in the league. Rouse was an almost physical clone of Taylor Mays, though about .05 sec to .1 sec slower.

Ted took the 2nd fastest WR in the 2007 draft, Clowney, who was nothing more than a number on a stopwatch, he had no route running or catching ability.

Almost every elite RB that had size (210+) since the start of the combine ran less than 1.53 in their 10 yd split. Ted has never drafted a RB slower.

At DE, Ted likes long arms. Monty's are some the longest in the league. Wynn's aren't too far off, Jeremy Thompson's are freakishly long as well.

Thomson, B. Jones, and Matthews, every rusher TT has drafted (Jason Hunter too) has been crazy fast, even as rushers go.

.......

I didn't key onto this until it was pointed out that Ted is a #'s drafter by Michael Lombardi. Sure enough. He clearly values tape, but Ted RARELY takes guys with mediocre #'s, he'll reach for good #'s before he grabs what is viewed to be great value but bad numbers. The really notable poor #'s guy that Ted took that was all tape was Abdul Hodge. When you really dig in to the numbers and compare them to other players taken in the drafts over Ted's GB tenure, it is shocking how often the best player at this or that is a Packer. Best 3C out of a linebacker last year....he's now our starting LOLB.

Face it, Ted is a lot closer to Crazy Al in draft philospohy than people care to believe.

[Smidgeon]

You may think so, but Ted doesn't.

Raji has one of the highest size:speed ratios of any DT to come out this decade (T Harris and K Williams are slightly higher)

Matthews ran one of the fastest 10 yd splits ever clocked for a 240+ lb person, at any position. Incidentally, Ted did draft the fastest 230+ lb person ever clocked, Deshawn Wynn.

Allen Barbre's combine workout was legendary good.

I picked out Lang as TT's target a month before the draft, simply with his workout #'s.

Ted has never taken a CB shorter than 6'0", or one that ran >4.49.

Nick Collins is one of the fastest S's in the league. Rouse was an almost physical clone of Taylor Mays, though about .05 sec to .1 sec slower.

Ted took the 2nd fastest WR in the 2007 draft, Clowney, who was nothing more than a number on a stopwatch, he had no route running or catching ability.

Almost every elite RB that had size (210+) since the start of the combine ran less than 1.53 in their 10 yd split. Ted has never drafted a RB slower.

At DE, Ted likes long arms. Monty's are some the longest in the league. Wynn's aren't too far off, Jeremy Thompson's are freakishly long as well.

Thomson, B. Jones, and Matthews, every rusher TT has drafted (Jason Hunter too) has been crazy fast, even as rushers go.

.......

I didn't key onto this until it was pointed out that Ted is a #'s drafter by Michael Lombardi. Sure enough. He clearly values tape, but Ted RARELY takes guys with mediocre #'s, he'll reach for good #'s before he grabs what is viewed to be great value but bad numbers. The really notable poor #'s guy that Ted took that was all tape was Abdul Hodge. When you really dig in to the numbers and compare them to other players taken in the drafts over Ted's GB tenure, it is shocking how often the best player at this or that is a Packer. Best 3C out of a linebacker last year....he's now our starting LOLB.

Face it, Ted is a lot closer to Crazy Al in draft philospohy than people care to believe.

Fascinating stuff. Got any more of these nuggets?

[RashanGary]

Ted has taken some top athletes that weren't good football players and I'm really disappointed in that. Hopefully he can focus a little more on just taking guys who kick ass on the field. They tend to be good athletes anyway.

I'll say this,

All good football players are good football players

Not all good athletes are good football players



At times, playmakers will come available. No need to take trash because your blinded in yoru search for treasure. If you keep grabbing good/great college players, the NFL playmakers will hit along the way.

[Smidgeon]

Ted has taken some top athletes that weren't good football players and I'm really disappointed in that. Hopefully he can focus a little more on just taking guys who kick ass on the field. They tend to be good athletes anyway.

I'll say this,

All good football players are good football players

Not all good athletes are good football players



At times, playmakers will come available. No need to take trash because your blinded in yoru search for treasure. If you keep grabbing good/great players, the playmakers will hit too.

Well, isn't the trick finding out which "good football players" in college can translate to "good football players" in the pros? You know perfectly well that there are far more college gamers who can't do it in the pros than there are ones that translate perfectly. Likewise, you hear stories here and there about players who didn't play ball in high school or didn't play until their college senior year, but end up playing well in the pros. Yours is a circular argument: TT needs to draft good football players because they're good football players. That's the metaphorical equivalent of saying "I like spaghetti because it's spaghetti." There's no logic trail there, just a logic circle that depends on the conclusion to build the antecedent.

[RashanGary]

Yeah. I see what you're saying.

How about this, take guys who show talent on the field that you are looking for in an NFL player.

Not so much just good college players, but players who's game you think translates well to the NFL. If you focus on that, I think you end up with a lot of really good athletes anyway.

[RashanGary]

Last year I was a big Kenny Britt fan because I saw him catch a lot of balls in traffic, saw him track non-perfect passes in the air and saw him adjust quickly to throws that were low, high or off to the side and make all of those catches. I think receivers that really catch well tend to play well in the NFL.


Measurables count, but the evaluation has to start on the football field. I'd say a guy should never move up more than a round off the grade you gave him on the field because of measurables. I could see dropping a guy who just tested out as a really poor athlete, but don't bump guys way up just because of numbers. If they're average on the college field, they'll probably be bad in the NFL. A 4.4 40 yd dash shouldn't change that.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Last year I was a big Kenny Britt fan because I saw him catch a lot of balls in traffic, saw him track non-perfect passes in the air and saw him adjust quickly to throws that were low, high or off to the side and make all of those catches. I think receivers that really catch well tend to play well in the NFL.


Measurables count, but the evaluation has to start on the football field. I'd say a guy should never move up more than a round off the grade you gave him on the field because of measurables. I could see dropping a guy who just tested out as a really poor athlete, but don't bump guys way up just because of numbers. If they're average on the college field, they'll probably be bad in the NFL. A 4.4 40 yd dash shouldn't change that.

It is relatively rare that a workout warrior moves up signficantly up the board.

What is kinda funny is that a buy you liked, was evaluated on the field..and was easy to see him taking plays off and had a primadona attitude.

[Waldo]

Yeah. I see what you're saying.

How about this, take guys who show talent on the field that you are looking for in an NFL player.

If the "just watch the tape" method was that good, there would be very few misses in the draft.

Take for example last year, pass rush OLB's:

1) Larry English, he's the most tenacious and consistently productive pass rusher in the draft. Has been his whole career. Overall though, pretty slow for an NFL pass rusher and linebacker. Measurables are very much on the fringe of being acceptable for the NFL level, though there is no distinct red flad.

2) Everette Brown, the leading major program sack artist, with lots of examples of him giving top LT prospects fits and beating them. His combine explosion drills and agility drills were very, very bad, a joke really.

3) Clay Matthews, not really noted as a sack artist in college, marginal experience, though he worked hard and did get there a few times as a senior. Performed no worse than NFL adequate at any drill (his VJ and bench weren't great), however scorched it on the agility drills and 10 yd split.

4) Brain Orakpo, not quite the sack artist Brown and English are, but close. In the #'s that you look at to project pass rushing success, the speed and explosion drills, Orakpo does well, excelling in the explosion drills. He performs adequate at all other drills as well, with no big blemishes.

5) Robert Ayers, supposedly looked eye poppingly good on tape, though he didn't have great production #'s in college. His workouts were laughably bad.

You can take your production and tape. Have fun with Everette Brown. I'll stick to the stopwatch and ruler, in addition to the production and tape, and have them ranked 1) Orakpo, 2) Matthews, 3)English, DND) Brown, DND) Ayers.

Production and tape matter too. Ted isn't the kind of idiot that will reach for #'s (that much), he just doesn't seem to bother taking guys that performed marginally or poorly in workouts. Good and bad workouts can be found everywhere in the draft.

There is a lot of value having the stopwatch tell you that AD cannot beat your OLB to the corner, that there is no WR in the division that can beat your FS deep.

If you were given Brad Jones' height, 3C, 10 yd, and 40 yd (generally seen as the #'s that matter for a CB), most would conclude that you are looking at a 2nd-3rd round CB that might have to be moved to FS (a la Rolle) at the NFL level to excel, having the quickness and agility to be elite, just lacking the deep speed to hang with the burners on go routes. A 7th round outside linebacker / pass rusher, LOL, he'd be a dynamo in coverage, having the physical ability to at least hang with starting WR's. It is any surprise that he has surpassed Pops and Thompson on the depth chart?

Do you think that it is luck that virtually every player that Ted has drafted, plus a good # of his UDFA's, are still playing in this league, if not with us then elsewhere.