Xavier Su'a Filo OG UCLA

[SeeingRed]

Thoughts? possibility at #23?

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/p...-su#146;a-filo

[planetdoc]

Widespread offensive-line issues reveal trend in team building

Gone are the days of the dominating lines of the 1990s Dallas Cowboys, the '80s San Francisco 49ers, or the transcendent Hogs in Washington. Prime contenders in New York (the Giants), Philadelphia, Chicago, Green Bay, Atlanta, New England, Baltimore and Pittsburgh entered the season with questions along their offensive lines. Only New England and Atlanta have sufficiently answered those, yet Philly is the only member of this group that isn't in the thick of the playoff race.

So the evidence shows that having a good line simply doesn't mean as much as it used to.

"I think you can mask (problems) up there," an AFC scouting director said. "You definitely can. The perfect example is the Steelers. At times, it doesn't look right at all. At other times, they're blowing everyone off the ball. The constant is the guys taking the snaps. And there was no greater example than Indy last year."

"[The offensive line] was below average most of the years [Manning] was there," an AFC scout said. "By the end, it'd qualify as poor. For a lot of those years, they didn't spend a high-round pick there -- I think (2007 second-rounder Tony) Ugoh was their highest pick. For the most part, they didn't see the reason to put a premium on it. I don't blame them. The average fan is gonna say, 'You have a great quarterback, you gotta protect him.' But the truth is, the great ones don't need it."

Three of the Giants' five linemen are homegrown -- two second-round picks and a fifth-round pick. The Packers' starters on Sunday night? A fifth-round pick, two fourth-round picks, an undrafted free agent and Saturday, cast off by Indy. The Bears just benched the only lineman they picked in the top 100 (Gabe Carimi). The Steelers, meanwhile, started three different left tackles in their three Super Bowl appearances over the past decade and only recently began spending high picks to protect Big Ben.

And yet, all four of those teams are contenders.

But it doesn't work for everyone. The AFC exec emphasized that it's a matter of scheme. Zone-heavy offenses, and clubs that base their running game off their pass game, can get by with some spare parts.

Others can't. The 49ers, for example, have three first-round picks on their line, a necessity for their downhill run game.

The AFC exec continued that he felt most teams should invest in one tackle and one interior lineman. The structure of the rest of the line is based on the setup of the offense.

But for everyone, there are challenges. Because it's the largest position group -- with five starters -- there's no way to keep a good young line completely intact long-term. At some point, decisions on who to pay, and who not to pay, will arise.

And that's when the offensive line coach becomes key. This assistant must be able to both blend players together in a spot that demands cohesion and also develop young guys in an age when personnel folks are often taught that draft capital need not be spent on the O-line. As the AFC scout said, "The philosophy I was brought in with was that, with the exception of the left tackle, we don't want to take linemen in the first three or four rounds."

So having someone like New England's Dante Scarnecchia, who was once resourceful enough to develop college wrestler Stephen Neal into a bedrock guard, can be huge. In fact, that ability to adapt and adjust up front has almost become a requirement in the salary-capped NFL.

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

This has actually been a relatively hot topic of discussion on this forum. Most of us are uniformly opposed to Su'a-Filo -- less because of talent, and more because we don't want a guard in the first round.

Sac will be by shortly to sing this guy's praises, and I've no doubt that he's on Dorsey's shortlist.

Regardless, I continue to think the Chiefs will use the 1st rounder on the back seven.

I think he fits what Reid wants in an offensive lineman, and we need a good guard on this team...but, that being said, if we pass over Odell Beckham for a ****ing guard I'm going to be really pissed.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by planetdoc

Widespread offensive-line issues reveal trend in team building

Gone are the days of the dominating lines of the 1990s Dallas Cowboys, the '80s San Francisco 49ers, or the transcendent Hogs in Washington. Prime contenders in New York (the Giants), Philadelphia, Chicago, Green Bay, Atlanta, New England, Baltimore and Pittsburgh entered the season with questions along their offensive lines. Only New England and Atlanta have sufficiently answered those, yet Philly is the only member of this group that isn't in the thick of the playoff race.

So the evidence shows that having a good line simply doesn't mean as much as it used to.

"I think you can mask (problems) up there," an AFC scouting director said. "You definitely can. The perfect example is the Steelers. At times, it doesn't look right at all. At other times, they're blowing everyone off the ball. The constant is the guys taking the snaps. And there was no greater example than Indy last year."

"[The offensive line] was below average most of the years [Manning] was there," an AFC scout said. "By the end, it'd qualify as poor. For a lot of those years, they didn't spend a high-round pick there -- I think (2007 second-rounder Tony) Ugoh was their highest pick. For the most part, they didn't see the reason to put a premium on it. I don't blame them. The average fan is gonna say, 'You have a great quarterback, you gotta protect him.' But the truth is, the great ones don't need it."

Three of the Giants' five linemen are homegrown -- two second-round picks and a fifth-round pick. The Packers' starters on Sunday night? A fifth-round pick, two fourth-round picks, an undrafted free agent and Saturday, cast off by Indy. The Bears just benched the only lineman they picked in the top 100 (Gabe Carimi). The Steelers, meanwhile, started three different left tackles in their three Super Bowl appearances over the past decade and only recently began spending high picks to protect Big Ben.

And yet, all four of those teams are contenders.

But it doesn't work for everyone. The AFC exec emphasized that it's a matter of scheme. Zone-heavy offenses, and clubs that base their running game off their pass game, can get by with some spare parts.

Others can't. The 49ers, for example, have three first-round picks on their line, a necessity for their downhill run game.

The AFC exec continued that he felt most teams should invest in one tackle and one interior lineman. The structure of the rest of the line is based on the setup of the offense.

But for everyone, there are challenges. Because it's the largest position group -- with five starters -- there's no way to keep a good young line completely intact long-term. At some point, decisions on who to pay, and who not to pay, will arise.

And that's when the offensive line coach becomes key. This assistant must be able to both blend players together in a spot that demands cohesion and also develop young guys in an age when personnel folks are often taught that draft capital need not be spent on the O-line. As the AFC scout said, "The philosophy I was brought in with was that, with the exception of the left tackle, we don't want to take linemen in the first three or four rounds."

So having someone like New England's Dante Scarnecchia, who was once resourceful enough to develop college wrestler Stephen Neal into a bedrock guard, can be huge. In fact, that ability to adapt and adjust up front has almost become a requirement in the salary-capped NFL.

Good read doc. I think the one factor that is most glaring is that teams with quarterbacks that have a very quick release can get away with a very lackluster offensive line. If not, then not so much. KC should have all the pieces to their line problems by now, but they don't. Its really a sad thing for as much capital as they put into it.

[RunKC]

Rishaw Johnson?

[The Franchise]

Albert is a marginal LT? This guy is supposed to be a good poster?

[planetdoc]

Originally Posted by kccrow

I think the one factor that is most glaring is that teams with quarterbacks that have a very quick release can get away with a very lackluster offensive line. If not, then not so much.

yup. PFF calculates something called "time to throw" which is the time from when the ball is snapped to the point where the quarterback has either thrown a pass or can no longer throw a pass. in Jan 2014 PPF said

League average time to throw this season was 2.58 seconds.

In 2012, Russel Wilson had the slowest release in the NFL while Brady had the fastest. Alex Smith was one of the slowest with a 2.9 second Time to Throw. It explains why he tends to take a lot of sacks.

Heard Jimmy Garapalo has a quick release.

[Direckshun]

Smith takes lots of sacks by design. He's Cassel-esque in that regard. He prefers to take a sack over making a questionable throw.

[planetdoc]

true, but then a throw-away is still better than a sack (which potentially loses yardage, exposes the ball to a fumble, and takes qb hits).

chip kelly who is big on metrics said this:

“We want the ball out of the quarterback’s hands in 1.5 seconds,” Kelly said while at Oregon. “That does not mean holding the ball until 2.5, waiting for someone to get open.”

For something like this to happen you need receivers that are quick enough to get immediate horizontal seperation (since most wont be able to run more than 10yrds in that time span), or are able to create vertical seperation by their size.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

Albert is a marginal LT? This guy is supposed to be a good poster?

You don't like it? Ah, poor thing. Albert played his best football the year he knew he'd finally hit the market. Up until then he was middle of the road. Period.