Offensive Line

**Gabrosin** · 03-07-2013, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by moose10101

Two of the Ravens' last four 1st round picks were offensive linemen. 50% isn't high enough?

In rounds 1-3 in the past six years, 6 out of 20 have been O-linemen. That's not enough?

I was about to post the same thing. We've invested heavily enough in the offensive line as far as I'm concerned. It's not the FO's fault that Grubbs wanted too much money to stay, or that they hit on Yanda in the third making Grubbs expendable. It's not the FO's fault that they had to take a prospective LT with flaws like Oher because we haven't drafted in the top ten since Suggs (unless you count our trade down for Flacco, which seems to have worked out all right).

We drafted Jah Reid and Ramone Harewood and Adam Terry before them as projects that failed to pan out. We just need to keep trying. And to recognize that we could find a decent LT in free agency this year (e.g. Sam Baker) and let him man the spot for a couple years while waiting for our next OT prospect (Menelik Watson?) to mature.

It is very, very rare for any college player to be able to play LT as a rookie. Even Ogden didn't.

**leachisabeast** · 03-07-2013, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by Gabrosin

I was about to post the same thing. We've invested heavily enough in the offensive line as far as I'm concerned. It's not the FO's fault that Grubbs wanted too much money to stay, or that they hit on Yanda in the third making Grubbs expendable. It's not the FO's fault that they had to take a prospective LT with flaws like Oher because we haven't drafted in the top ten since Suggs (unless you count our trade down for Flacco, which seems to have worked out all right).

We drafted Jah Reid and Ramone Harewood and Adam Terry before them as projects that failed to pan out. We just need to keep trying. And to recognize that we could find a decent LT in free agency this year (e.g. Sam Baker) and let him man the spot for a couple years while waiting for our next OT prospect (Menelik Watson?) to mature.

It is very, very rare for any college player to be able to play LT as a rookie. Even Ogden didn't.

I wouldn't say its very rare at all anymore. Both Cordy Glenn and Matt Kalil started every game at LT last season and both played well.

**bmorecareful** · 03-07-2013, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by moose10101

Two of the Ravens' last four 1st round picks were offensive linemen. 50% isn't high enough?

In rounds 1-3 in the past six years, 6 out of 20 have been O-linemen. That's not enough?

The whole story can't be told by counting the number of draft picks. The Ravens' MO on the OL over the years has been very simple: only commit to 1 elite lineman at a time, and fill in the rest with cheaper options. Used to be JO, now it's Yanda. Take college OTs and turn them into guards, take college guards and turn them into centers, and as much as possible do it in the late rounds.

The Ravens have never hesitated to let quality linemen walk in free agency, then try to fill them in with old, broken-down vets. It works sometimes (Willie Anderson, Matt Birk) and fails sometimes (Bobbie Williams) but it NEVER buys you more than a few years. Meanwhile, the "project" guys they've drafted either fail to pan out, or they DO pan out, and then the Ravens don't want to re-sign them.

I'm not putting a value judgment on the approach; obviously it's worked out very well given how successful the team has been, and there's no point in blaming them when players don't pan out. I'm just pointing out that year after year, the defense has carried the bulk of the team's cap number while other positions were addressed in more cost effective manners, the OL being one of them. Maybe it's time for that to change?

Originally Posted by Gabrosin

I was about to post the same thing. We've invested heavily enough in the offensive line as far as I'm concerned. It's not the FO's fault that Grubbs wanted too much money to stay, or that they hit on Yanda in the third making Grubbs expendable. It's not the FO's fault that they had to take a prospective LT with flaws like Oher because we haven't drafted in the top ten since Suggs (unless you count our trade down for Flacco, which seems to have worked out all right).

We drafted Jah Reid and Ramone Harewood and Adam Terry before them as projects that failed to pan out. We just need to keep trying. And to recognize that we could find a decent LT in free agency this year (e.g. Sam Baker) and let him man the spot for a couple years while waiting for our next OT prospect (Menelik Watson?) to mature.

It is very, very rare for any college player to be able to play LT as a rookie. Even Ogden didn't.

How did Yanda's emergence render Grubbs expendable? You know the Ravens play two guards at the same time every offensive play, right?

You can FEEL like the Ravens have "invested heavily in OL," but that doesn't make it true. Monetarily, they have not. The Ravens spent about $15m TOTAL on offensive line last season. Meanwhile, they spent $12m on safeties, $26m on LBs, $13.5m on DL, etc.

Overall the Ravens spent the 5th most on their defense and the 23rd most on their offense by salary cap dollars last year. They spent 30% more on defense than offense. Check the numbers at this excellent site: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/inte...rancisco-49ers

**Gabrosin** · 03-07-2013, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by bmorecareful

The whole story can't be told by counting the number of draft picks. The Ravens' MO on the OL over the years has been very simple: only commit to 1 elite lineman at a time, and fill in the rest with cheaper options. Used to be JO, now it's Yanda. Take college OTs and turn them into guards, take college guards and turn them into centers, and as much as possible do it in the late rounds.

The Ravens have never hesitated to let quality linemen walk in free agency, then try to fill them in with old, broken-down vets. It works sometimes (Willie Anderson, Matt Birk) and fails sometimes (Bobbie Williams) but it NEVER buys you more than a few years. Meanwhile, the "project" guys they've drafted either fail to pan out, or they DO pan out, and then the Ravens don't want to re-sign them.

I'm not putting a value judgment on the approach; obviously it's worked out very well given how successful the team has been, and there's no point in blaming them when players don't pan out. I'm just pointing out that year after year, the defense has carried the bulk of the team's cap number while other positions were addressed in more cost effective manners, the OL being one of them. Maybe it's time for that to change?

How did Yanda's emergence render Grubbs expendable? You know the Ravens play two guards at the same time every offensive play, right?

You can FEEL like the Ravens have "invested heavily in OL," but that doesn't make it true. Monetarily, they have not. The Ravens spent about $15m TOTAL on offensive line last season. Meanwhile, they spent $12m on safeties, $26m on LBs, $13.5m on DL, etc.

Overall the Ravens spent the 5th most on their defense and the 23rd most on their offense by salary cap dollars last year. They spent 30% more on defense than offense. Check the numbers at this excellent site: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/inte...rancisco-49ers

Sure, but it's not very cost-efficient to pay big money to two different players at guard. Guard is the dumpster bin of the offense. If a guy can't cut it at tackle, you can move him in to guard and usually do okay. You can compensate for a guard's deficiencies in a way that you just can't at tackle. And not everyone can play center, make line calls and so forth. Having one stellar guard for pulls and traps is a real asset. Having two is a luxury many teams can't afford. We can't afford it. But we got fine production out of Osemele from the second round when he moved in there.

When I say "heavily invested", I mean in terms of draft capital, not cash. It's also foolish to look at cap dollars for a single year like that. Better to average out the expected dollars over the life of each contract, rather than focus on year by year variance that can be quite high. Even still, any position where you have young talent is going to look like you're under-investing, when in reality you're just getting a steal.

**Jeremiah W** · 03-07-2013, 07:21 PM

I think all the OL positions are pretty close to equal in value other than from the supply angle. If all five guys are at least pretty good, the entire playbook is open. If one guy is totally overmatched, the o c has to scheme up some help.
IMO Oher was not that terrible at lt when Grubbs was there and the rest of the line was decent. The market looks good to find a few good linemen. As long as we end up with a respectable starter at each spot and so e depth the players can be interchangeable.

**ballhawk** · 03-07-2013, 07:24 PM

Why is it that since the beginning of time, the biggest question mark going into the ravens next season is the Oline.? We are so close...a LT away from an elite unit. But until we get that final piece, its just a below avg mismatch of guys playing out of position. Is there a LT in this draft that we could potentially trade for even if its 10+ spots. LT is the BIGGEST position of need right now. They gotta make something happen!

**The Excellector** · 03-07-2013, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by ballhawk

Why is it that since the beginning of time, the biggest question mark going into the ravens next season is the Oline.? We are so close...a LT away from an elite unit. But until we get that final piece, its just a below avg mismatch of guys playing out of position. Is there a LT in this draft that we could potentially trade for even if its 10+ spots. LT is the BIGGEST position of need right now. They gotta make something happen!

Which is why they can't afford to go cheap with it anymore, unless they draft their guy, and not in the supplemental draft.

**wickedsolo** · 03-07-2013, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by ballhawk

Why is it that since the beginning of time, the biggest question mark going into the ravens next season is the Oline.? We are so close...a LT away from an elite unit. But until we get that final piece, its just a below avg mismatch of guys playing out of position. Is there a LT in this draft that we could potentially trade for even if its 10+ spots. LT is the BIGGEST position of need right now. They gotta make something happen!

Kind of paints a picture on how difficult it is to find guys who play well in space, you know?

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

**The Excellector** · 03-07-2013, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Kind of paints a picture on how difficult it is to find guys who play well in space, you know?

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

It also shows us how difficult it is to replace Hall of Fame players. For years, LT was the only position on the offensive line that we didn't have to worry about. Now, following the team's second Super Bowl title, it seems to be the only one we DO have to worry about.

For the record, look at how long it took the Ravens to replace Matt Stover.

**wickedsolo** · 03-07-2013, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by The Excellector

It also shows us how difficult it is to replace Hall of Fame players. For years, LT was the only position on the offensive line that we didn't have to worry about. Now, following the team's second Super Bowl title, it seems to be the only one we DO have to worry about.

For the record, look at how long it took the Ravens to replace Matt Stover.

We aren't the only team with issues at LT though. There are really only a few teams have what I would call "solid" play at the LT position. Yet, many of them get to the playoffs...

This is why Caldwell is going to so important next year. A lot of Oher's issues at LT can be nullified through game plan.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

**ballhawk** · 03-07-2013, 07:50 PM

Would it be worth moving way up to get a LT? Atlanta went way up for Jones and you could say LT is just as important if not more so. We are a Lt away from having the kind of line Brady and manning used to have. Is there anybody in the draft that would be worth a blockbuster trade? Am I just dreaming?

**The Excellector** · 03-07-2013, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

We aren't the only team with issues at LT though. There are really only a few teams have what I would call "solid" play at the LT position. Yet, many of them get to the playoffs...

This is why Caldwell is going to so important next year. A lot of Oher's issues at LT can be nullified through game plan.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

The system that Caldwell uses, employs a ton of slants and more in routes than what Ravens fans are used to seeing. However, I think he is going to tailor his system more to Flacco's ability to throw deep. We can still expect to see the long ball and you need good LT play for the long ball. New England gets away with it, because Brady only holds the ball for a split second, before throwing his five yard passes.