Is having a great LT overrated?

**wickedsolo** · 04-26-2013, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by AirFlacco

Nor does someone disagreeing with it but the paper was right in this case. Some people are
just in denial.
___________________

ILMAO:

Well, did anyone notice the first player taken in the draft was a LT. Hmmmmmmmmn
Did anyone notice the second player taken in the draft was a LT.
Did anyone notice the fourth player taken in the draft was a LT.

That's 3 of the first 4 players drafted were LTs.

Now throw in 2 OGs in the top 11. Somebody emphasizes blocking with 5 of the first
11 picks being blockers.

There was a run on blockers and that dropped both Cyprien and
Elam to us plus all those guys we discussed still available in round 2 for Oz to make a
killing if he trades up.

And the reason espn gave was because of the increase amount of blitzes over the season.

So that pretty much puts this topic to rest. LTs are not over-rated according to these GMs,
maybe some of the message board wannabes but not the real GMs, but someone will have an answer for everything.

I'm outta here.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/tracke...-round-input:1

Message board "wannabe" huh?

Using this draft (or any for that matter) as the litmus test for whether or not the LT position is overrated is mind numbingly dumb.

Maybe...*gasp*...just maybe the OL'men in this draft were some of the best players available in this draft?

Consider the 2012 NFL draft. Matt Kalil goes #4 overall to the Vikings. The next LT prospect taken...scratch that...the next OFFENSIVE LINEMAN taken? Reilly Reif at pick 23 to the Lions. The next OT prospect taken? Mitchell Schwartz to the Browns in round 2.

Why? Because the other players were better value and/or better prospects. That's why.

Message board wannabe's...haha. Right.

You're just so hellbent on hating you some Michael Oher that you keep breezing over the fact that several people in this thread (and others), including me, have acknowledged that if you have the chance to take one of the top LT prospects - and they're one of the best players available - you do it. However, no matter what you may think or mockingly post on this forum, not having a top flight LT does not means that the team is destined for failure.

**wickedsolo** · 04-26-2013, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by darb72

Okay, now the first round is over I can add my two cents.

Great LTs tend to go to bad teams thanks to bad teams drafting high in the draft. Obviously teams picking in the top 10 have a lot more problems than just one position on the offensive line. Joe Staley is arguably the best LT in football, yet hasn't even sniffed the play-offs. The browns roster is terrible though, with only Staley and Haden being likely to start for most play-off caliber teams.

A team like the Ravens can scheme around some of the deficiencies of having lesser talent at LT. Roll the QB, chip with the TE, or slide protection that way. So having someone like a Joe Staley means you don't have to use your TEs or RBs to help protect the QB. It opens up the offense a bit more.

It can open the offense a bit more, but the Ravens don't exactly have a good blocking TE and Pitta was a major factor in pretty much every game last year. And again, the Ravens went to the playoffs before Jah Reid got hurt and they had to shuffle the OL by inserting McKinnie.

Was McKinnie a factor in the Ravens playoff run and SB victory? Of course. It is a team sport and he was out there as a starter during the playoffs, so clearly he contributed.

Would the Ravens have still won with Oher at LT? Possibly. We just can't know for sure, but if the Giants game (with Oher at LT and KO at RT and Jah at LG) is any indication of how drastic of an improvement Caldwell's play calling had on the entire offense, then it is certainly possible that the Ravens still would have run the table and won the SB.

Can the Ravens or any other team that doesn't have stud LTs be successful and have productive offenses? Yes. History, especially recent history, has shown that teams can still win it all with average and even below average play from the LT position. At that point, like you state, it is all about the offensive coordinator's game plan.

Will the Ravens draft a LT prospect? I hope so. If only because the depth behind Oher and KO is zero right now and if they're going to draft a LT prospect I would hope it is one that actually has a legitimate shot at developing into a better player than Oher has been.

Would the Ravens have drafted one of the LT prospects this year if they were in the top 5? Probably. In fact, most definitely. Why? Because Ozzie picks based on value and need. Eric Fisher, Lane Johnson, and Luke Joeckel were three of the top rated players in this draft.

Should the Ravens bomb next season, should they target a LT prospect? Sure, if they're the best player available when the Ravens are picking.

**jonboy79** · 04-26-2013, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

, not having a top flight LT does not means that the team is destined for failure.

This can be said about any other position on the football field as well, perhaps in rare instances even including the QB position...

**wickedsolo** · 04-26-2013, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

This can be said about any other position on the football field as well, perhaps in rare instances even including the QB position...

Of course.

That is the beauty of the game being such a team sport.

Another "beauty" is that because of the symbiotic relationships on both sides of the ball, the sum is greater that any of the individual parts (with the exception possibly being the QB).

I think 10-15 years ago teams could get away with average QB play as long as they had a superior rushing attack. Unfortunately, the NFL has evolved to the point where you almost always have to have great QB play to get to the SB. Outside of a few anomalies, that seems to be the current trend. This is also why teams have more than one RB capable of starting and now are moving towards TE's who are more receivers than an extension of the OL that has some receiving ability.

**jonboy79** · 04-26-2013, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

what could be funny to some though, is that within 48 hours there is likely to be at least 3 teams with not only 1, but 2 better LT's than the Ravens. Cheifs/Pats/Rams.

It's funny... I was ctually OFF on this.. it's not 3 teams, it's ]5 TEAMS that have 2 better LT's then the Ravens. I wasn't counting on both JAX and PHI getting LT's...

**wickedsolo** · 04-26-2013, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

It's funny... I was ctually OFF on this.. it's not 3 teams, it's ]5 TEAMS that have 2 better LT's then the Ravens. I wasn't counting on both JAX and PHI getting LT's...

I get what you're saying, but we could say the same about other positions and other teams.

I would argue that we have 3 better outside linebackers than a lot of teams. Or, the Ravens have at least 4 corners that are better than a lot of other team's top 2.

Just kind of the luck of the draw with where you're drafting and how much money you're allocating for the different positions.

**jonboy79** · 04-26-2013, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

I get what you're saying, but we could say the same about other positions and other teams.

I would argue that we have 3 better outside linebackers than a lot of teams. Or, the Ravens have at least 4 corners that are better than a lot of other team's top 2.

Just kind of the luck of the draw with where you're drafting and how much money you're allocating for the different positions.

agreed... we do have 3 starting OLBers and probably 3 starting quality corners... 2 starting quality RB's...

**wickedsolo** · 04-26-2013, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

agreed... we do have 3 starting OLBers and probably 3 starting quality corners... 2 starting quality RB's...

Yup. I mean, even with drafting DJ Hayden yesterday, I bet that Chykie Brown would still be the Raider's best corner...and (without knowing much about Asa Jackson yet) he is at best the 3rd or 4th best corner on the Ravens.

**Ravenswintitle** · 04-26-2013, 04:39 PM

Hey Air,
Went on a cruise a couple years ago and in our suite, they had The Blind Side playing on 7 channels, each in a different language. I never want to see that film again. Imagine Tim McGraw and Sandra Bullock in Italian or Mandarin Chinese.... it was the only thing on TV

**Ravenous1** · 04-26-2013, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Message board "wannabe" huh?

not having a top flight LT does not means that the team is destined for failure.

Last time I checked neither the guys who play LT last year perfromed at a "top flight" level actually far from it or we would not be talking bout this right now.

Last time I checked we won the Super Bowl with said mediocre LT play. McKinney was certainly not "great" in the playoffs he was decent but not great. So think that this question was already answered by last years team and this (me) message board wannabe agrees with you wholeheartedly Solo

Do you want a great LT sure...can you win without one ...sure long as your strong throughout the rest the line.

**SeeBass** · 04-29-2013, 10:58 AM

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...es-overvalued/

**BigPlayReceiver** · 04-29-2013, 03:46 PM

Maybe a lighter and slightly more experienced KO could work out at LT.

According to PFF.com KO had 3 poor pass blocking games; PHI (-2.6) , KC (-5.2) and DEN (-3.8).
Note: "Poor" is my term for PFF.com's negative grades. IFAIK, they don't use such terms or tags.

If KO had scored a neutral "zero" in each of those three games then his seasonal score in pass blocking would have been +14.3, which would have been good enough for a rank of #15 in the NFL...ahead of Trent Williams, Eugene Monroe and Joe Staley.

For the other 13 games, KO's pass blocking average was +0.9, which is not particularly great. However, if he had scored +0.9 in each of the PHI, KC and DEN games then he would have totalled a seasonal scored of +17.0, which would have been good for a rank of #10 in the NFL...ahead of D'Brickasaw, Branden Albert and Matt Khalil.

Look at specific negative results, in his three crappy games, KO's "Sacks / Hits / Hurries" numbers were...
PHI -- 0 / 2 / 3
KC -- 2 / 0 / 5
DEN -- 0 / 1 / 6

That's a total of 2 sacks, 3 hits and 14 hurries or 29%, 43% and 52% of his seasonal totals of 7 sacks, 7 hits and 27 hurries, respectively. Those are big chunks.

Next week I should have time to go back to those games and see how and why KO got beat.
Did he fail to pick up a stunt or blitz? To some degree, that's fixable via more snaps, awareness and film study.
How many times was he beat by speed rushes? Well, he is losing weight.
How many times was he beat by bull rushes? To some degree, that's fixable via technique.