The sorry state of offensive lines in the NFL

I've been an outspoken critic of our Offensive Line, and I continue to think they are underperforming, but what I've been noticing is that there seem to be a lot of teams struggling with the O-lines. I watched the Niners-Packers game today and both lines looked awful in pass protection.

The Niners allowed 6 sacks, the Packers 3. The Packers line looked worse than the stats would indicate, if you ask me. KC allowed 5 sacks, Minnesota allowed 7! Last week it looked like Matthew Stafford was getting rid of the ball after three steps back because he knew he would be under pressure.

Mark Schlereth made a comment on Brock and Salk about this phenomenon, and a lot of analysts are blaming this on the spread offense that is prevalent in college. I don't know what it is, but aside from the Cowboys, I'm not hearing much love for other O-lines around the league and I'm not seeing a lot that I like either.

xgeoff":2e9wncnj said:

I've been an outspoken critic of our Offensive Line, and I continue to think they are underperforming, but what I've been noticing is that there seem to be a lot of teams struggling with the O-lines. I watched the Niners-Packers game today and both lines looked awful in pass protection.

The Niners allowed 6 sacks, the Packers 3. The Packers line looked worse than the stats would indicate, if you ask me. KC allowed 5 sacks, Minnesota allowed 7! Last week it looked like Matthew Stafford was getting rid of the ball after three steps back because he knew he would be under pressure.

Mark Schlereth made a comment on Brock and Salk about this phenomenon, and a lot of analysts are blaming this on the spread offense that is prevalent in college. I don't know what it is, but aside from the Cowboys, I'm not hearing much love for other O-lines around the league and I'm not seeing a lot that I like either.

Click to expand...

Offensive. Clearly.
Stinkeroo.
Thank God Russ slides, eh?

It seems like Tom Cable has been really disappointed with the training that O-linemen have received in College. I think this is one of the main reasons why he prefers to take raw linemen late in the draft and teach them himself from the ground up.

He just is not impressed with the quality of O-linemen coming out of college. I wouldn't be surprised if other teams are making the same assessment but just draft them early anyway.

Yea, in the past I've been a proponent of "holy crap, can we at least draft the best OLman we can get in either 1st or 2nd round ?"

Now, I'm not so sure. I'd actually be happy with a CB in the 1st round of next year. We could draft a OL pick in the 1st round, but it's really not a set thing that the guy will pan out.

It's really why I liked the Glowinski pick. WV was running a very similar scheme to us, and all he really has to adjust to is the size/speed/strength of the NFL and verbage of our offense. He could honestly start next year.

Okung isn't horrible, so I think our OL next year will come down to if and how much we sign OKung for, and how much will guys like Britt, Nowak and Gilliam progress in their spots.

I think we look for a good LBer, CB, Safety, and OL next year. Not necessarily in that order.

I actually think a lot of it has to do with the CBA. With the lack of two a days the linemen by being heavier than everyone else simply are not able to keep up the other players. With the reduction of contact in practices, the offensive linemen are not accustomed to taking on rushers early in the season as much as they used to be.

Cincinnati's O-line is legit

HawkFan72":1cy8fek5 said:

It seems like Tom Cable has been really disappointed with the training that O-linemen have received in College. I think this is one of the main reasons why he prefers to take raw linemen late in the draft and teach them himself from the ground up.

He just is not impressed with the quality of O-linemen coming out of college. I wouldn't be surprised if other teams are making the same assessment but just draft them early anyway.

Click to expand...

That's funny, because ive been really disappointed in the training they receive from Tom Cable.

No wonder our OL sucks. They haven't had any decent training since High School.

Even the Cowboys OL this year has looked average at best.

CodeWarrior":2a7k111p said:

Cincinnati's O-line is legit

Click to expand...

I agree. Watching them play the KC chiefs at the moment. I recorded it from yesterday to see what we may want to scheme....uh....nevermind. Still gonna watch the game tho.

Yup blame the spread offense. Olineman never go forward anymore, they are either back pedaling or moving side to side.

Hence seattle going to move a Dlineman to O route so Cable can form all the habits and not have to worry about breaking all the bad ones.

I will simply say that our o-line should play better with time but we say that every year.

Cincy will be no joke next Sunday so tonight's game could go a long way in the confidence aspect.

gowazzu02":db6zz6lc said:

Yup blame the spread offense. Olineman never go forward anymore, they are either back pedaling or moving side to side.

Hence seattle going to move a Dlineman to O route so Cable can form all the habits and not have to worry about breaking all the bad ones.

Click to expand...

I know UO spread is run based, so that could be the difference, but UO has put arguably Was the top guard before moving to tackle this year into the NFL in Long, a top 3 center when healthy in Unger, and Jake Fisher is looking good as a rookie.

I have been saying for quite a while that our offensive line is league average. It's not that I think they are particularly better than most people think, it's that I don't think people realize just how bad the average offensive line is. Throw in the AFC lines that look a lot better due to the defenses they face, and you might understand why I think our line is average to just above average.

Also, the defenses are just that good, especially in the NFC West

-bsd

xgeoff":1rjw5gk3 said:

Mark Schlereth made a comment on Brock and Salk about this phenomenon, and a lot of analysts are blaming this on the spread offense that is prevalent in college. I don't know what it is, but aside from the Cowboys, I'm not hearing much love for other O-lines around the league and I'm not seeing a lot that I like either.

Click to expand...

Up tempo spread offenses are run by one read QB's that only require 1-2 seconds of run or pass blocking. This style of offense negates the need to teach sustained technique........which is a MUST in the NFL.

So yeah, it makes perfect sense that Cable wants to start from scratch with his lineman, or even converted D-lineman.

That right there is a snapshot of the sorry state of NFL O-lineman.................that coordinators would rather have converted D-lineman with no terrible habits than try to reteach college lineman who played in spread systems with no ability to sustain blocks or use proper technique.

I think everyone is really beginning to wise up to how OL talent in general is severely underperforming around the league.

It's one of the reasons why I think Wilson needs to evolve and get the ball out quicker. Instead of dropping, hitching and then looking to extend. Incompletions are better than sacks. Particularly for our offense. Because while the leaguewide trend is clearly poor results from OL investment via the draft -- the one team bucking that trend is New England. They are rotating very young OL talent in similar fashion to how we do it with our DL. But Brady's ability to get the ball out so quickly neutralizes the expected short protection times that OL quality provides.

Look at teams that have spent enormous draft capital at the OL position in the last few years and you can see that the returns from that investment are very similar to teams that nearly ignore it. Pass rush quality is just too good in general and it's been that way for quite some time. Sometimes you have to just accept what is and adjust to it. I think Seattle would be better off conceding that and tailoring the offense to work within those confines.