What is more important on offense: Great skilled players or a great offensive line?

[Lomax to Green 84]

In a perfect world you would want both, but I have really started to look at this issue and wonder what is most important. Most will say that you build your team from the inside out, that is make sure you are strong on both lines. I agree that strong offensive and defensive lines go a long way to making you a successful team, but I also think that great offensive skill positions players can make a really average offensive line look pretty damn good.

Front page of the USA Today Sports Weekly-Peyton Manning surrounded by his 5 starting offensive linemen. Outside of Terak Glenn, there isn't one guy on that list that is anything more than a serviceable offensive lineman. The two guards were either 7th rounders or undrafted free agents, and the right tackle was a mid to late round pick and yet they look like pro bowlers with Manning and James back there producing.

Basically we have a terrible starting quarterack playing behind a below average offensive line. Not a good combination for success on offense. The Colts have an all time great quarterback playing in front of an average offensive line at best and they have the best offense in the league. I am just repeating what a million others have said here:JOSH MCCOWN IS THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH THIS OFFENSE!!!

 

[Poorknight1]

Oline and Dline dictate EVERYTHING...

Skill players make big plays that can, sometimes, win games but if you are looking to build a consistant winner you need to win the battle in the trenches. Look at the difference between Carolina last year and this year....their lines were dominating and they went to the SB. Now that both units are underacheiving they are fighting for the 1st pick. The loss of Steve Smith hurt, don't get me wrong, but the reason they aren't winning right now has very little to do with his injury.


PK1

 

[Russ Smith]

a punter with a cool helmet.

 

[Lex]

Poorknight is right.

It all starts and ends with the men in the trenches.

We've had the same o-line for years. Behind it, McCown sucks, Blake sucked, and of course Jake sucked.

Denny got rid of the d-line this year, next year it'll be the o-line.

 

[jerryp]

Offensive line, without a doubt.

Edit: Oh and I am not sure what you're saying about most of Indy's offensive line being only "serviceable".

Football Outsiders attempts to see how much line play affects performance. For running they use "adjusted line yards" and for passing they use "adjusted sack rate"

Indy is currently ranked first in adjusted line yards and fourth in adjusted sack rate. They are ranked low in power success, a measure of short yardage situations, which correltates well with what we've seen, Indy has problems punching it in and often times Peyton will go to the air to compensate. However, Indy is ranked well in "stuff rank" which measures the percentage of run attempts that are stuffed. Number one in that category is New England.

This may be why New England has success despite not having an overwhelming run game. While they don't throw up gaudy numbers in the rushing column, they have the lowest rate of stuffs in the NFL. In other words, when they run, they are efficient. (Fourth in adj. line yards as well)

Take a look for yourself at http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol.php

I know the temptation is there to trash their methods when their rankings don't immediately match your personal rankings but please read the explanation on their methods. They really are quite interesting and have given me an entirely different perspective on football.

 

[Russ Smith]

Poorknight is right.

It all starts and ends with the men in the trenches.

We've had the same o-line for years. Behind it, McCown sucks, Blake sucked, and of course Jake sucked.

Denny got rid of the d-line this year, next year it'll be the o-line.

assuming you're right, what's the secret to a good OL?

We've drafted guys high, really high, we've signed FA's, hired respected OL coaches, brought in the most versatile assistant in the history of the NFL, and the OL still sucks every year.

Look at the Chiefs, arguably the best OL in football.

Roaf, first rounder. Brian Waters (LG) undrafted FA, Cowboys cut him, played TE and DL in college, never played OL before the NFL and the Chiefs.

C Casey Wiegmann, UDFA in Indy in 96, cut by Indy, cut and added to the PS twice that year by Indy. Claimed by Jets in 97, cut by Jets in 97. Went to Chicago in 97, worked for Bob Wylie there for 2 years and then signed with KC.

LG Will Shields 2nd rounder from some podunk university in the Big 8, widely considered overrated coming out, now considered the best guard in the NFL by many.

RT John Welbourn 4th round pick in Philly, after signing he got an 8 year extension, and was traded to KC for a 4th and 5th round pick.

That's 2 high picks, 2 UDFA and a 4th rounder. So I guess Mike Solari and Irv Eatman must be incredible coaches or incredible judges of talent or both?

That's the problem on the OL, just not that easy build a really dominant one that makes anybody behind it look good.

 

[Vomit Boy]

No right answer.

The 1983 Redskins won because of the Hogs and Jon Riggins.

The 1999 Rams won because of skilled players. Probably the most skilled team to ever play together for onem season. Whether you were a fan of the Rams or not, it was fun to watch that football. No greater offensive show in the history of NFL football. And they went of that year at 200-1 odds to win it all.

If you seriously don't think that this years Cardinal team has that capabilty, you don't know the new NFL as we know it.

I'm not going to do a '..I told you so later..." , but it will be something close to that.

 

[Cheesebeef]

The 1999 Rams won because of skilled players. Probably the most skilled team to ever play together for onem season. Whether you were a fan of the Rams or not, it was fun to watch that football. No greater offensive show in the history of NFL football. And they went of that year at 200-1 odds to win it all.

If you seriously don't think that this years Cardinal team has that capabilty, you don't know the new NFL as we know it.

I think you're overestimating our skill players - if I'm reading you right. The one thing that put them Rams heads and shoulders above ALL of our skill players was one constant - SPEED - Blazing speed with Bruce, Holt and Hakim - and blazing Speed with Marshall. I love Fitz and Q and think they are/will be special players, but to say that they have the capabilities that the Rams did in their heyday is stretching it a bit. And there is really ZERO debate as far as Emmitt v. Faulk.

 

[Lex]

Great post Russ-

It's not easy. Coaching has to be the #1 thing. Chemistry is crucial to the performance of an o-line, coaching can help that along, keeping a unit together also does this.

Philosophy also comes into play. Do you want a huge line that wears down a defense during the game as you pound away at them on the ground? You lose some of the quarterbacks ability to see the receivers on thier routes with linemen that are 6'8 330 lbs, and those guys don't move very well, so it's harder to get them to pull, or hit the next level of the defense. If you want a big punishing line, then you'd better have a good running back behind them. Your wideouts would be less important.

I personally like smaller quick athletic o-linemen. They must have great footwork, and be great technicians. That's why I liked Step and Lecky so much. Both are former wrestlers, where technique is key. Most of the time, a great technical block for a second or two gets the runner through a hole, if you start play action, and have a guy or two pulling, it can be devastating to a d-line.

I enjoy listening to Lincoln Kennedy on the NFL Network. He gets everyone on the show to agree that the 0-line is the most important aspect for success in the NFL. Even Rod Woodson reluctantly agreed with him.

 

[Vomit Boy]

I think you're overestimating our skill players - if I'm reading you right. The one thing that put them Rams heads and shoulders above ALL of our skill players was one constant - SPEED - Blazing speed with Bruce, Holt and Hakim - and blazing Speed with Marshall. I love Fitz and Q and think they are/will be special players, but to say that they have the capabilities that the Rams did in their heyday is stretching it a bit. And there is really ZERO debate as far as Emmitt v. Faulk.

Sorry if you read that wrong.

No team will ever have the skills that the Rams had then.

But, what I was saying is that in this new NFL you can win it all with your "own thing". I think the Cards have their "own thing" this year.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Sorry if you read that wrong.

No team will ever have the skills that the Rams had then.

But, what I was saying is that in this new NFL you can win it all with your "own thing". I think the Cards have their "own thing" this year.

gotcha.

 

[CardLogic]

Holian, I respect your opinion and enjoy your postings. But you sure went a long, long way around to create yet another McCown Sucks thread.

Oh and by the way...

the answer is, it's the Lines! All other things remaining equal, with better OL play the Cardinals would have won in Atlanta, and just possibly might have beaten New England!

 

[Russ Smith]

Holian, I respect your opinion and enjoy your postings. But you sure went a long, long way around to create yet another McCown Sucks thread.

Oh and by the way...

the answer is, it's the Lines! All other things remaining equal, with better OL play the Cardinals would have won in Atlanta, and just possibly might have beaten New England!

Yep, and all other things remaining equal we would have beaten Atlanta, New England, possibly St. Louis and SF with better Qb play.

There's too many variables to know without trying them all. If King plays sunday and we still can't throw the ball we'll learn something, if he plays and we suddenly can throw the ball we'll learn something else. If Josh plays 4 quarters and we can't throw the ball, what will we have learned?

 

[Snakester]

I think it starts with the quarterback. A great QB can do wonders for an offense. After that I think it's O-line, running back, WR,TE,FB.

 

[Rats]

If Josh plays 4 quarters and we can't throw the ball, what will we have learned?

I will always vote for the lines but you have to have impact guys to make the offense go. Russ, I would say that you need to look at Garys review on the first page. I was close to his view that JM threw 16 good passes and 6 poor ones. I thought he had 15 good and 8 bad. I didn't give him the pass that Williams dropped it was a bad throw but he should have caught it. I just think you can't make statements like yours above without actually watching and reviewing the throws. We will learn nothing from his throws if we don't see why the passes were incomplete or complete. I think that is the same if King plays. To accurately analyze the plays you have to review it to see why it was successful or unsuccessful. Thats tough to do during live action unless one side of the ball is dominate and you can clearly see why plays are working.

 

[StatsAmare]

I wouldn't know; I only watch Cardinals games.





just kiddin

 

[Poorknight1]

To be fair...the '99 Rams had a pretty damn good Oline. And the Dline was overacheiving like crazy...I think D'marco Farr (i.e. Carlton from the Fresh Prince) had 8.5 sacks or so...


PK1

 

[seesred]

If Manning got hurt in Indy would the back up do as well? I think not. It takes two to Tango. Yes it starts up front but if you don't have the highly skilled people it wont work.

GBR
40
Beat Carolina

 

[Russ Smith]

I will always vote for the lines but you have to have impact guys to make the offense go. Russ, I would say that you need to look at Garys review on the first page. I was close to his view that JM threw 16 good passes and 6 poor ones. I thought he had 15 good and 8 bad. I didn't give him the pass that Williams dropped it was a bad throw but he should have caught it. I just think you can't make statements like yours above without actually watching and reviewing the throws. We will learn nothing from his throws if we don't see why the passes were incomplete or complete. I think that is the same if King plays. To accurately analyze the plays you have to review it to see why it was successful or unsuccessful. Thats tough to do during live action unless one side of the ball is dominate and you can clearly see why plays are working.

Watched it, couldn't tape it I was watching in a British pub.

How come he had 22 throws and you had 23, and Josh threw 24, what are you guys hiding?

I guess I think that regardless of good throw to bad throw ratio, 90 yards is 90 yards, 3.75 YPA is awful, against a defense with both starting DE's out. Yes they have good CB's but Deion and Lester Hayes in their prime wouldn't hold teams to 90 yards passing with 2 backup DE's in there. He didn't play well I think we all agree on that.

But I don't see the relevance, if after 9 weeks with a bad passing offense, a new QB comes in and the passing offense gets better, who cares why? Just as you say if we win who cares about Josh' numbers, if the offense got better with Shaun King ,will you care why? If it doesn't at least we'll know it's not Josh, if it does get better, we learn something. If Josh keeps playing and doesn't get better we'll learn nothing that was my point.

 

[CardinalChris]

I will say decent O-Lineman are slightly easier to find than skill position

 

[Duckjake]

Poorknight is right.

It all starts and ends with the men in the trenches.

We've had the same o-line for years. Behind it, McCown sucks, Blake sucked, and of course Jake sucked.

Denny got rid of the d-line this year, next year it'll be the o-line.

But the Cards also had vastly different lines in earlier years and behind them Plummer sucked,Graham sucked, Krieg sucked, Buerlien sucked, Chandler sucked... Neil Lomax was sacked 162 times over 3 seasons '84-'86!!! So I think it's neither skill positions nor Oline. It's the logo on your helmets.

 

[Jasper]

Everything starts with the offensive line!
The battle starts in the trenches.