NFL has an Offensive Line Crisis

[Rat]

I find this to be a wonderful thing, as it makes the Hawks look less bad.

Not really. It expresses that the Seahawks OL is one of the league's worst despite OLs being poor across the league. They're the losers among the losers.

 

[jammerhawk]

A team that figures out a way to develop high potential candidates into serviceable players will quickly develop a significant advantage if they an acquire and keep the other pieces of a successful team.

 

[mrt144]

Dinosaurs have an ambient temperature crisis

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Has?

How bout "had".........as in this has been going on for a good 7-10 years now, as we damn well know here.

I know a lot of experts like to blame the reduced pad and practice time that teams get to practice at full speed in pads, which is really important for sure.

But even more important is the college game, 80% or more of programs run the one read get the play from the sidelines spread offense. That means lineman barely learn proper block technique, they stand straight up and only have to sustain their blocks for half a second and the balls out.

That's why I don't blame Cable, he's basically working with guys who don't even have an middle school understanding of basic line blocking schemes and techniques.............cause 80% of them have been in spread offenses their entire football lives.

 

[mrt144]

Has?

How bout "had".........as in this has been going on for a good 7-10 years now, as we damn well know here.

I know a lot of experts like to blame the reduced pad and practice time that teams get to practice at full speed in pads, which is really important for sure.

But even more important is the college game, 80% or more of programs run the one read get the play from the sidelines spread offense. That means lineman barely learn proper block technique, they stand straight up and only have to sustain their blocks for half a second and the balls out.

That's why I don't blame Cable, he's basically working with guys who don't even have an middle school understanding of basic line blocking schemes and techniques.............cause 80% of them have been in spread offenses their entire football lives.

Which is why it's lunacy thinking you can mold them into something else before they are up for their 2nd contract. I like confidence but not unwarranted confidence.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Has?

How bout "had".........as in this has been going on for a good 7-10 years now, as we damn well know here.

I know a lot of experts like to blame the reduced pad and practice time that teams get to practice at full speed in pads, which is really important for sure.

But even more important is the college game, 80% or more of programs run the one read get the play from the sidelines spread offense. That means lineman barely learn proper block technique, they stand straight up and only have to sustain their blocks for half a second and the balls out.

That's why I don't blame Cable, he's basically working with guys who don't even have an middle school understanding of basic line blocking schemes and techniques.............cause 80% of them have been in spread offenses their entire football lives.

Which is why it's lunacy thinking you can mold them into something else before they are up for their 2nd contract. I like confidence but not unwarranted confidence.

Maybe, what would this line look like if we kept guys like Sweezy, Carp, Unger and Okung? Then had Britt at guard?

Maybe we couldn't afford other players, but I tell you one thing, this would be a top 5 line in the league and we'd be running the damn ball.

I get that Pete and John don't like to overpay for players, but this is an offensive line crisis, maybe it's time to rethink this philosophy when it comes to the O-line..........cause not sure I can handle another decade of O-line dumpster fires ruining our seasons.

 

[mrt144]

Fwiw i dont want to keep our o linemen if they rise only to the level of sweezy, i just realize that the hawks are failing to do the necessary thing with the direction theyve gone which is hit on draft picks that start being average in season two or three of their rookie contract. A tall task to be sure, but one that was chosen with Cable as the wizard who could turn lambs into lions.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Fwiw i dont want to keep our o linemen if they rise only to the level of sweezy, i just realize that the hawks are failing to do the necessary thing with the direction theyve gone which is hit on draft picks that start being average in season two or three of their rookie contract. A tall task to be sure, but one that was chosen with Cable as the wizard who could turn lambs into lions.

To be fair, he has improvedo our linemen, just not as fast or to the quality of giving most of them a 2nd contract. Britt is now the ONLY exception.

So if we're pinpointing the problem here, IMO the problem isn't "has Cable improved these guys"..........it's Pete and John have an unrealistic timetable for how FAST Cable can teach them up into capable linemen.

So either start trading UP in the draft to get higher quality lineman with a better chance of that rapid improvement needed..............or allocate more cap space for O-line free agency to sign guys like Lang.

 

[mrt144]

Fwiw i dont want to keep our o linemen if they rise only to the level of sweezy, i just realize that the hawks are failing to do the necessary thing with the direction theyve gone which is hit on draft picks that start being average in season two or three of their rookie contract. A tall task to be sure, but one that was chosen with Cable as the wizard who could turn lambs into lions.

To be fair, he has improvedo our linemen, just not as fast or to the quality of giving most of them a 2nd contract. Britt is now the ONLY exception.

So if we're pinpointing the problem here, IMO the problem isn't "has Cable improved these guys"..........it's Pete and John have an unrealistic timetable for how FAST Cable can teach them up into capable linemen.

So either start trading UP in the draft to get higher quality lineman with a better chance of that rapid improvement needed..............or allocate more cap space for O-line free agency to sign guys like Lang.

Works for me going forward :irishdrinkers:

 

[scutterhawk]

Good thing we have no rookies starting and our oline averages 3.2 years experience.

Another great advantage we should see translate to the field this season. :2thumbs:

Don't forget that 4/5th the line was on the team last season.

With only ONE playing in his usual position & Fant out with an injury, it's not surprising that we lost to Rodgers and his way more cohesive Packers O-Line....To add, Officiating was lopsided as hell, and we were playing against the Leagues sweetheart sugar-babies in their back yard.
Considering all this ^^^^^The Seahawks Defense did an astounding job of keeping the game close.

 

[Seymour]

Good thing we have no rookies starting and our oline averages 3.2 years experience.

Another great advantage we should see translate to the field this season. :2thumbs:

Don't forget that 4/5th the line was on the team last season.

With only ONE playing in his usual position & Fant out with an injury, it's not surprising that we lost to Rodgers and his way more cohesive Packers O-Line....To add, Officiating was lopsided as hell, and we were playing against the Leagues sweetheart sugar-babies in their back yard.
Considering all this ^^^^^The Seahawks Defense did an astounding job of keeping the game close.

If that is so detrimental, then why is it that we do that year in and year out then? My answer is stubborn arrogance and the whole "it's not about them, it's about us" attitude that hurts this team every week.

Rodgers, refs, and defense has nothing to do with the oline which is the topic.

Not many are bothered with the loss here. The offense looking and playing like they don't belong in the NFL is the issue.

 

[sdog1981]

If this was true sacks numbers would be trending higher every season: They are not.

If this was true a player would have broken the 22 sack mark: They have not.

If this was true offensive numbers would be down: They are not.

This article also implies that spread offenses are something new. They have been the go-to offense for college coaches for the past 10 years.

 

[Seymour]

If this was true sacks numbers would be trending higher every season: They are not.

If this was true a player would have broken the 22 sack mark: They have not.

If this was true offensive numbers would be down: They are not.

This article also implies that spread offenses are something new. They have been the go-to offense for college coaches for the past 10 years.

I agree with all that.

There is no major NFL offensive line crisis.

There is a minor offensive lineman shortage, and a Seahawks offensive line crisis.

Cable has been trying to blame this going on 3+ years now. Bummer for us it only consistently shows up here every year.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

If this was true sacks numbers would be trending higher every season: They are not.

If this was true a player would have broken the 22 sack mark: They have not.

If this was true offensive numbers would be down: They are not.

This article also implies that spread offenses are something new. They have been the go-to offense for college coaches for the past 10 years.

All these things you mention are IMO more a direct result of the rules changing far favoring the offense, rather than saying offense lines aren't worse.

If the rules weren't trending way in the favor of protecting the QB and offensive players? You'd definitely see a sharper spike up with sacks. That's why offenses stats are through the roof.

Anyone who's watched pro football for more than 10 years can see that there's an O-line crisis. Used to be half the league had good to great lines, now it's maybe 4-5. Everyone else like us is in pure survival mode.

 

[StoneCold]

I've been saying that for a couple years. Many lines are bad. Few are good. And probably represent a bit of statistical luck as much as good coaching. Everyone is struggling to find good prospects, a few blind squirrel GM's get it right and voila, they look like geniuses. Schneider hasn't had his OL blind squirrel moment like he has with DB's, but hopefully soon.

The problem is, every good athlete wants to be DL. Every college offence recognizes they OL prospects are slugs and designs a spread offence to manage the problem of crappy prospects. Then the scouts have no good evaluation film and recognizes lots of these guys are slugs and its hard to know which ones will work out and which ones won't. So the draft becomes a crap shoot where some teams get lucky and some don't.

Been thinking along these lines lately. If you are in college, weigh close to 300 and have good athletic skills, you must be looking at what each position gets paid and DL seems to get more the OL. I think that's why you see fewer athletic big men choosing OL and hence the need for the spread which only makes things worse in terms of preparation for the pro game.

 

[mrt144]

I've been saying that for a couple years. Many lines are bad. Few are good. And probably represent a bit of statistical luck as much as good coaching. Everyone is struggling to find good prospects, a few blind squirrel GM's get it right and voila, they look like geniuses. Schneider hasn't had his OL blind squirrel moment like he has with DB's, but hopefully soon.

The problem is, every good athlete wants to be DL. Every college offence recognizes they OL prospects are slugs and designs a spread offence to manage the problem of crappy prospects. Then the scouts have no good evaluation film and recognizes lots of these guys are slugs and its hard to know which ones will work out and which ones won't. So the draft becomes a crap shoot where some teams get lucky and some don't.

Been thinking along these lines lately. If you are in college, weigh close to 300 and have good athletic skills, you must be looking at what each position gets paid and DL seems to get more the OL. I think that's why you see fewer athletic big men choosing OL and hence the need for the spread which only makes things worse in terms of preparation for the pro game.

I think it happens before then - If you're big AND quick you can leverage that a lot as a dlinemen where the guy opposite of you might just be some big cornfed dude from Iowa. You perform better, get more kudos and attention, more opportunity is within reach even if you're not going to be drafted. The impact of being a lights out Dlinemen at any level is more noticable than similarly skilled and talented olinemen.

 

[StoneCold]

I've been saying that for a couple years. Many lines are bad. Few are good. And probably represent a bit of statistical luck as much as good coaching. Everyone is struggling to find good prospects, a few blind squirrel GM's get it right and voila, they look like geniuses. Schneider hasn't had his OL blind squirrel moment like he has with DB's, but hopefully soon.

The problem is, every good athlete wants to be DL. Every college offence recognizes they OL prospects are slugs and designs a spread offence to manage the problem of crappy prospects. Then the scouts have no good evaluation film and recognizes lots of these guys are slugs and its hard to know which ones will work out and which ones won't. So the draft becomes a crap shoot where some teams get lucky and some don't.

Been thinking along these lines lately. If you are in college, weigh close to 300 and have good athletic skills, you must be looking at what each position gets paid and DL seems to get more the OL. I think that's why you see fewer athletic big men choosing OL and hence the need for the spread which only makes things worse in terms of preparation for the pro game.

I think it happens before then - If you're big AND quick you can leverage that a lot as a dlinemen where the guy opposite of you might just be some big cornfed dude from Iowa. You perform better, get more kudos and attention, more opportunity is within reach even if you're not going to be drafted. The impact of being a lights out Dlinemen at any level is more noticable than similarly skilled and talented olinemen.

Absolutely. I wonder if the economics changes, and you see more Tackles getting 15 16 mil, if there would be a shift. I know everyone felt Okung contract was out of line with his skill, but what the market will bear, as they say.

 

[twisted_steel2]

It was mentioned, what would the line look like if we had kept Unger, Sweezy, Capenter, and Okung. So I was curious what those guys are making now. So went looking on Spotrac at their current contracts. What are their cap hits this year and next. Added in Gilliam as well to round it out.

RT Gary Gilliam $2,162,500 -
RG JR Sweezy $4,687,500 - next year 5,875,000
C Max Unger $$7,400,000 - next year 8,000,000
LG James Carpenter $6,805,000 - next year 6,805,000
LT Russell Okung $6,000,000 - next year 15,000,000

That's about $27,055,000 cap hit for 2017

And let's say we had another 4 o-lineman making about $800,000 a year, rookie deals or minimums. Say our cap hit total is about $30 to 31,000,000 a year? So we'd be about 8th or 9th total spender in NFL for o-line this year.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/offensive-line/

Next year though..... we'd sky rocket to the top 1 or 2 when Okung's contract balloons.

 

[sdog1981]

If this was true sacks numbers would be trending higher every season: They are not.

If this was true a player would have broken the 22 sack mark: They have not.

If this was true offensive numbers would be down: They are not.

This article also implies that spread offenses are something new. They have been the go-to offense for college coaches for the past 10 years.

All these things you mention are IMO more a direct result of the rules changing far favoring the offense, rather than saying offense lines aren't worse.

If the rules weren't trending way in the favor of protecting the QB and offensive players? You'd definitely see a sharper spike up with sacks. That's why offenses stats are through the roof.

Anyone who's watched pro football for more than 10 years can see that there's an O-line crisis. Used to be half the league had good to great lines, now it's maybe 4-5. Everyone else like us is in pure survival mode.

I have numbers to support my claims. Rushing yards are the same, passing yards are the same, the number of QB injuries are the same, sack totals are the same. So what are you using the measure this crisis?

 

[Seymour]

If this was true sacks numbers would be trending higher every season: They are not.

If this was true a player would have broken the 22 sack mark: They have not.

If this was true offensive numbers would be down: They are not.

This article also implies that spread offenses are something new. They have been the go-to offense for college coaches for the past 10 years.

All these things you mention are IMO more a direct result of the rules changing far favoring the offense, rather than saying offense lines aren't worse.

If the rules weren't trending way in the favor of protecting the QB and offensive players? You'd definitely see a sharper spike up with sacks. That's why offenses stats are through the roof.

Anyone who's watched pro football for more than 10 years can see that there's an O-line crisis. Used to be half the league had good to great lines, now it's maybe 4-5. Everyone else like us is in pure survival mode.

I have numbers to support my claims. Rushing yards are the same, passing yards are the same, the number of QB injuries are the same, sack totals are the same. So what are you using the measure this crisis?