The Crisis of our Lines is Exaggerated

[SonnyJ]

The most recent playoffs proved this to be untrue. When we played the Patriots, we laid back and played coverage. Tom Brady managed to obliterate us completing well over 100 percent of his passes. However, when he was faced with a good dline and a mediocre coverage unit against the Giants. Brady twice looked like Danny Weurfal. If a QB keeps getting hit or only his 2 seconds to look, decide, and throw you all but neutralize them. Any of them.

You do know that Brady put up 38 points against the Giants in the first meeting, don't you? Completed over 75% of his passes, for 356 yards and 2 TDs, no picks. Are you talking about Danny Wuerffel from his Florida days when he won the Heisman ? I'll admit, though, that Brady probably had a better day against the Redskins .

Have you ever considered the possibility that the Giants used their experience in that first game debacle to craft a gameplan where their "mediocre" coverage unit took away Brady's quick reads, forcing him to hold the ball longer than he would like, thus allowing the Giants superb pass-rushing DL the extra time needed to beat the overrated Patriot OL? There is not a pass-rushing unit in the NFL that can generate consistent pressure in only 2 seconds - usually if the QB (depending on the drop) gets the ball out in 3 seconds, he'll be OK. The Giants seemed to be taking those routes away, giving its DL the 3-4 seconds it needed to either pressure or sack Brady.

Finally, when we played coverage with a four man rush. Too many qbs became probowlers. I think of 2006 when we relied on this defensive line and they could never make a stop. I think of 2007 where too often if they needed to close out the game, they couldn't. This great d... this great d line surrendered how many first half leads?

2006 was apparently not a DL personnel issue, as the Redskins stood pat on the DL and produced a significantly better defense. As far as closing out games, yes, it could have done better. As I've pointed out in other threads, though, the Giants allowed late game scores, too. And more productive offense could certainly help out in this regard, as well.

Good OL play, especially along with good QBing, will almost always beat a great pass rush - it is hard for the pass rush to get to the QB on a well-executed passing play (given no unblocked rushers, which should never happen if we're talking about a non-blitzing situation). If the pass rush is able to get to the QB, chances are good coverage is involved. It works hand-in-hand.

I agree with you, though, that it is best to be ready to address the problem before it becomes a problem. When that is, I don't know.

[SonnyJ]

BTW, I think that the man you call our worst lineman is a good football player.

Ditto. If the biggest complain about the unit is Kendall, I'd say the line was in good shape.

[ceviker]

This is one of the best posts I've read on here in a LONG time. I've been screaming the same sentiment for the past 6 years. To the naysayers that say we're too old on the lines I - number 1, we're only old on the offense side of the ball. Last time I checked, Wilson, Montgomery, Golston, and Carter were all pretty young. Add to that verterns Daniels and Griffen and you're solid there.

On the offensive side, we need to start drafting players in the later rounds. We got one guy this year and I'm sure we'll get a couple more next year. Stephon Heyer looks like he can be a starter in this league. Maybe we find another one in this year's class of USFA.

[mudhog]

I'm only concerned with the fact that we haven't acquired more depth on the interior of the line. Rinehart and all of our UDFAs are tackles with 1 center.

Why no depth at LG where our worst lineman is starting?

CG, I'm pretty sure that Brown is a LG, not positive though. I saw the Drafy Guys video on him and I think he was at LG.

Hail

[Going Commando]

The article waas discussing building a line for a running game, not building a line....for one.

You win in the trenches, ask any ex football player.

Good teams draft lineman, people who can block, people who can put heat on the QB. Our biggest deficiency on D last year was an inability to get to the qb. On offense, an inability to stop the qb from getting hit.

Generally, the successful teams that draft lineman high do so based on their athleticism. Outside of the LT position, that athleticism is mostly so that a lineman can get into space to run block. (But that isn't even a hard and fast rule -- Matt Light is a marginal athlete and he is a great pass protector.) Also, even when it comes to run-blocking, players with superior technique and coaching can do really well without being all that athletic. (John Jansen is a great example of this.) Great pass protection results from great coaching and scheme, not drafting linemen high, and also a great QB who is either mobile or gets the ball off quickly.

The point of the article was to show how drafting a stud offensive line is great if you want to run the ball, but teams don't win that way any more. The most integral part of a good passing game is the QB, I can't see how anyone can argue against this. Beyond Tarik Glenn and Jeff Saturday, can anyone offhand name the other members of the Colts' championship offensive line? And I can't even name a single player on the Giants championship line from last season, and they are in the division. All things considered, it isn't that big a deal to field a competent pass protecting offensive line as long as the team can get a good LT and has good coaching. It definitely isn't as hard or critical as finding a franchise QB.

Our biggest defficiency last year was QB play. The team that won the four games at the end of the regular season fielded the same lineman as the team that Jason Campbell struggled for. The difference was that Todd Collins didn't turn the ball over at all during those games. Then, when he started to in the Seahawks game we fell apart, and he didn't have the ability to compensate for that and win the game anyway.

Finally, I'm arguing that our defense didn't really have all that many defficiencies because they did well last year, even at getting to the qb. If sacks are your measure of success, they finished 16th in the league. That was 15 places better than the year before without adding a single stand out player to the line. And if you look back from the year before, the acquistion that sparked the drastic improvement was getting a great player at MLB, not on the defensive line.

[MoeRedskins]

our o -line has a 1 or 2 year window before we blow it up cuase of age. I mean, their is no youth in sight outside of the draft pick this season.

[mudhog]

our o -line has a 1 or 2 year window before we blow it up cuase of age. I mean, their is no youth in sight outside of the draft pick this season.

:doh: la la la

[fansince62]

Damm Fansince62, you are usually pretty good with your evals. but I think you are wrong here. We didn't fall apart at the first significant injury last year. We had multiple key injuries at many spots and still stayed competitive thru the season. While I'll admit we crapped-out over the whole Dockery mess by not extending him sooner, we had an adequate back-up with Kendall.

While I'll admit the right side of the line was the weak spot after loosing Thomas and Jansen, Heyer was coached up very well by Boss Hog, and shined in more than a few contests.(namely against the Strayhan) Yea, he was completely outclassed by Kearney in the Seattle game. But by the time we played Seattle on that short week, we were pretty much running on fumes as a team.

Besides the reciever threats we collected in the draft, we nailed a very good LT who could and should be Samules replacement when he goes. Rineheart will be coached by argueably one of the best in the buisness under Buges.( who, had no small part in Rinehearts aquisition ) Add to that, Brown at LG and maybe one or two more of the UDFAs we have making the PS, and we have practically a whole future line. I submit that our strategy to keep us competitive was and is our coaching.

I also challenge the notion that a late season run is somehow BS. Why should it mean any less to win later rather than sooner. Seems to me that crapping-out at the end should by all accounts be worse. Gelling at the end of the season to make the playoffs should signal that we have reached a whole new level and are worthy. Any way you look at it though, a win during the regular season is a win none the less. I'm just happy when we are winning! Go Skins!

Hail

mud.....the facts are what they are

- on the first playoff run we struggled to get into the playoffs. many of the games we won down that 5 game stretch were pretty ugly. it was not of the "great team coming together" variety. heck...we needed ST to set things straight against a Philly team having a horrendous year - we almost let an average/slightly abover average receiver (Brown) beat us. the performance was what it has been all along the last 4 years......on the cusp. never certain. we have had just a couple games where everything actually executed in the magical way so many keep claiming happened.

- last year's playoff run, while exciting, had all sorts of unique cicumstances...not the least of which was ST's murder. the team started off well...in fact should have been 6-2 at the turn. but the point is...it wasn't. it has been a bumpy ride with a lot of inconsistency for a long time. always good...never good enough. all you ahve to do is reflect on game after game after game to realize that.

fixing our receiver limitations is a good thing. we can finally put this to bed since we first started mucking with it back in the Spurrier days. the lines need to be upgraded. many of us have listed the issues ad infinitum. Cerrato and Blache have as much as said there is work to be done.

in the end.....some are looking at the folks we have on the lines and thinking "good enough"...there are others of us thinking "not good enough". not if you want to win Championships. there are weaknesses there that good defenses and good offenses can exploit - and have exploited in the playoffs. when we think about how we got to where we are one clear pattern is how the draft has been prioritized in years past. the way the team has managed its cap, discounted draft picks, signed its FAs has put it in a hole IRT synchronizing its roster stability in the sense of sustaining Championship quality talent. It's obvious to me that the Skins are on a rebuilding project...you can read it between the lines and it ought to be ovious except to the most diehard, drug addled diehard: we have a new HC with no experience, a new OC, a new DC, a new VP with a different philosophy on roster management. In some ways...it's exciting to watch what is going on and believeing that they finally "get it." but until we become a 13-3/12-4 team ranked in Riggo's top 5....:-).....week in and week out......I'm waiting for results.

Don't forget Cerrato really hasn't cue'd us in on the long-term plan. patr of the journey is watching this unfold...I truly hope we all underestimated him by miles and miles.

[MoeRedskins]

:doh: la la la

ignore it now, but when Thomas and Kendall break down, where are you going to go? And Jansen, love the guy, but 2 out of the past 4 years he has been out the whole year and our back up plan was a guy in his 20th season and an undrafted rookie.

[Dick Edds]

I think the most important factor to this entire discussion, is that this is a TEAM sport. OL goes hand in hand with the level of QB performance ... sometimes the OL is the reason the QB has success, and sometimes the QB can make up for deficiencies in the OL. But the bottom line is, that it's how you work together. Likewise with DB's and the pass rush.

We can continually try and isolate the performance of one group/person and try to analyze how heavily it weighs on the outcome or performance of another position or a game in general, all day long. But this is not tennis or golf. This is football, where 11 men have to work in unison on each side of the ball to have success.

Anyone can craft a theory and find the necessary opinions/research to support that belief. After all, 90% of research is conducted after a theory/hypothesis has been developed, in order to support it.

Regardless of statistics, wins or losses ... it is no secret that our line was very depleted last year. Two of our top OL'man suffered season ending injuries in the first 2 games, and we also experienced injuries like hamstrings and such later in the season on the OL. We can debate all we want whether we were "sufficient" or "good enough" on the OL to justify staying pat, not drafting any high caliber prospects or bringing in FA's, whichever we prefer.

That being said, it is what it is, it is simple and it is not rocket science. Athletes reach a physical/athletic peak, and then they decline, some faster than others. THIS is why many on this board clamor for more depth. So that in the future we aren't trading for 34 year old guards to fill a need, and bringing in Fabini. To make light of this fact, or to make little of the fact that some want the team to draft OL'man for depth, is not really looking at the big picture IMO.

I don't necessarily think that this issue has to be soley addressed in the draft, or that there aren't capable OL'man out in FA. But the odds on having younger OL'man who have had a couple years to develop in a system, has proven to give a new OL'man in a group the best chance to succeed.

I find it interesting that a reporter, with as much experience Clayton has in the journalism field and as much knowledge as he has of the game from a fan's perspective ... has probably never suited up and played the game of football as an organized sport. I'm not suggesting that he is not capable of understanding the game, its positions or it's strategies. But I do find it interesting that a guy that is prolly 5'8 and 150 lbs can support the notion that an OL is not as crucial to the success of a team than he gives credit for. I do not think our DL is in the same situation and I feel comfortable with the youth ad vet experience we have there. And I think we have a couple good prospect on the OL, and if our vets do stay healthy, we will have success. But that doesn't mean, at least IMO, that you don't look to get younger and better at those positions. Just my $.02.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

our o -line has a 1 or 2 year window before we blow it up cuase of age. I mean, their is no youth in sight outside of the draft pick this season.

Um, how old is Heyer again?...

[fansince62]

I think the most important factor to this entire discussion, is that this is a TEAM sport. OL goes hand in hand with the level of QB performance ... sometimes the OL is the reason the QB has success, and sometimes the QB can make up for deficiencies in the OL. But the bottom line is, that it's how you work together. Likewise with DB's and the pass rush.

We can continually try and isolate the performance of one group/person and try to analyze how heavily it weighs on the outcome or performance of another position or a game in general, all day long. But this is not tennis or golf. This is football, where 11 men have to work in unison on each side of the ball to have success.

Anyone can craft a theory and find the necessary opinions/research to support that belief. After all, 90% of research is conducted after a theory/hypothesis has been developed, in order to support it.

Regardless of statistics, wins or losses ... it is no secret that our line was very depleted last year. Two of our top OL'man suffered season ending injuries in the first 2 games, and we also experienced injuries like hamstrings and such later in the season on the OL. We can debate all we want whether we were "sufficient" or "good enough" on the OL to justify staying pat, not drafting any high caliber prospects or bringing in FA's, whichever we prefer.

That being said, it is what it is, it is simple and it is not rocket science. Athletes reach a physical/athletic peak, and then they decline, some faster than others. THIS is why many on this board clamor for more depth. So that in the future we aren't trading for 34 year old guards to fill a need, and bringing in Fabini. To make light of this fact, or to make little of the fact that some want the team to draft OL'man for depth, is not really looking at the big picture IMO.

I don't necessarily think that this issue has to be soley addressed in the draft, or that there aren't capable OL'man out in FA. But the odds on having younger OL'man who have had a couple years to develop in a system, has proven to give a new OL'man in a group the best chance to succeed.

I find it interesting that a reporter, with as much experience Clayton has in the journalism field and as much knowledge as he has of the game from a fan's perspective ... has probably never suited up and played the game of football as an organized sport. I'm not suggesting that he is not capable of understanding the game, its positions or it's strategies. But I do find it interesting that a guy that is prolly 5'8 and 150 lbs can support the notion that an OL is not as crucial to the success of a team than he gives credit for. I do not think our DL is in the same situation and I feel comfortable with the youth ad vet experience we have there. And I think we have a couple good prospect on the OL, and if our vets do stay healthy, we will have success. But that doesn't mean, at least IMO, that you don't look to get younger and better at those positions. Just my $.02.

nice post DE.

[fansince62]

Um, how old is Heyer again?...

are you saying his performance last season qualified him as starting material?

I think not. he's a feel good story who performed beyond expectations. DC's don't spend nights worrying about how to generate a pass rush off right tackle when he's in the game. the hope is that he continues to mature into an above average NFL tackle with skills/abilities at least proximate to those Jansen had during his better days. we all want this. it's not there now...and that is the key point. don't bet on potential...bet on results. the thing about Hyer is that, from training camp to last game (well, not the playoff game in which he was man-handled) he domeonstrated progress/growth. we don't know yet where this is headed.

[fansince62]

double post

[BoondockSkin]

Two players on our O-line are young enough to "matter" for another 3-4 seasons, barring injury. Pete is past his prime, but get's the job done sufficiently. Thomas, if below his high-end ability of 4-5 seasons ago, is still a very good guard in the NFL. Jansen is a question mark, but I'm sold on Heyer as a backup and/or starter. Realistically we have to draft 1 solid backup/future starter per draft for the next two years if we ignore free agency totally, and then all-of-a-sudden we have a young line again.

The same goes for the Dline. Two of the six who rotate on the line are old. It takes one draft, maybe two (if administered competently)-again ignoring free agency-to make the line "young" there, too. I agree with the OP that the team rests on JC's development, and I believe that is in large part the responsibility of Zorn.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

what qualifies them as one of the best in the league?

When healthy:

2005:

#10 in sacks allowed

#7 in rushing yards

2006:

#3 in sacks allowed

#4 in rushing yards

When not healthy:

2007:

#13 in sacks allowed

#12 in rushing yards

Out of curiosity, what would you think would qualify an offensive line as one of the best in the league?

[Dick Edds]

nice post DE.

thanks fansince62 ... I am of the mindset that Rome was not built in a day. I think we are going in the right direction, and we are all counting on our OL to be healthier this year, this should lead to more success for JC. But it also doesn't hurt to have some young guys to develop at the same time.

My biggest fear concerning the OL, is keeping Samuels healthy. It will be a sad day for the B&G if and when Samuels gets injured or starts to decline. Keeping my fingers crossed on that one. Hail to em!

[CG]

Brown is listed on redskins.com as an RG if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure how easy it is to switch from one side to another and play RG or LG tho.

I like the Rinehart pick since I think we may take Samuels' durability for granted. With the rate of injuries that happen in the NFL, odds are he'll get hurt eventually. It looks like the FO has real concerns about Randy and Jansen with the stockpiling of RTs, although again I'm not sure how much G/OT translates in the NFL.

I would've said that depth/competition behind Rabach and Kendall would be the major concerns, since Jansen's broken leg and Thomas' tricep tear were both sort of freak injuries, not necessarily indiciative of chronic durability issues.

[Philip Pease]

I agree with the post. I suggest that the saying that games are won or lost in the trenches is somewhat out of date. It was true before free agency and salary cap balanced out teams ability to acquire talent. Getting 5 premier offensive linemen is a luxury no team can afford.

I also think that the west coast offense is designed to get the ball out of the QB's hands before the pass rush can get to the passer. Big possession type receivers together with a good QB make the west coast offense work. The OL needs to stop the initial surge and pick up blitzes to allow the QB to take three steps back and throw the ball (rather than taking 5 steps back, looking around and waiting for a receiver to get open and then throwing the ball).

The west coast offense is effective because it counters a strong pass rush; so on defense the ability of DBs and LBs to shut down those quick passes is more important than a strong DL.

This is the way I view John Clayton's article.

[Going Commando]

I think the most important factor to this entire discussion, is that this is a TEAM sport. OL goes hand in hand with the level of QB performance ... sometimes the OL is the reason the QB has success, and sometimes the QB can make up for deficiencies in the OL. But the bottom line is, that it's how you work together. Likewise with DB's and the pass rush.

We can continually try and isolate the performance of one group/person and try to analyze how heavily it weighs on the outcome or performance of another position or a game in general, all day long. But this is not tennis or golf. This is football, where 11 men have to work in unison on each side of the ball to have success.

I don't necessarily think that this issue has to be soley addressed in the draft, or that there aren't capable OL'man out in FA. But the odds on having younger OL'man who have had a couple years to develop in a system, has proven to give a new OL'man in a group the best chance to succeed.

I find it interesting that a reporter, with as much experience Clayton has in the journalism field and as much knowledge as he has of the game from a fan's perspective ... has probably never suited up and played the game of football as an organized sport. I'm not suggesting that he is not capable of understanding the game, its positions or it's strategies. But I do find it interesting that a guy that is prolly 5'8 and 150 lbs can support the notion that an OL is not as crucial to the success of a team than he gives credit for. I do not think our DL is in the same situation and I feel comfortable with the youth ad vet experience we have there. And I think we have a couple good prospect on the OL, and if our vets do stay healthy, we will have success. But that doesn't mean, at least IMO, that you don't look to get younger and better at those positions. Just my $.02.

You make a good point, and I guess I need to sharpen my position to limit this more to the draft. Clayton is basically arguing that the way to field a powerful offense these days is to build the passing game. Granted, an important part of the passing game is pass-protection--I don't want to say that it is irrelevant. What I wanted to say was that it is easier and more common to acquire a good pass protecting unit than it is a good QB. If it's rare to find top offensive linemen outside the draft, it's much more so to find the QB. That is Clayton's point, that because of the rarity of good players at this position, they are the ones who need to be drafted early. Focusing on the offensive line at the expense of getting a QB is heading for trouble--you are building that line to supplement the play of the man who has the ball in his hands every single play, and it will do you no good to have a great line if your qb sucks. (hence the wasting of Jansen and Samuels' best years)

Recent history has shown that a competent line can be built with later picks and free agents, as long as the coaching and the scheme can compensate for it. Special UDFA offensive linemen like Stephon Heyer come about far more often than the Diamonds in the Rough like Tony Romo sits to pee and Derek Anderson do. Because of this, a team has to do place a priority on getting their QB, and 9 our of 10 times it has to be done in the draft. The draft is about picking individuals who can have more of an impact for your team. If Matt Ryan turns into a good QB and John Beck/Chad Henne don't, no matter how good Jake Long ends up being, the Dolphins will sorely regret not picking Ryan instead.

[fansince62]

thanks fansince62 ... I am of the mindset that Rome was not built in a day. I think we are going in the right direction, and we are all counting on our OL to be healthier this year, this should lead to more success for JC. But it also doesn't hurt to have some young guys to develop at the same time.

My biggest fear concerning the OL, is keeping Samuels healthy. It will be a sad day for the B&G if and when Samuels gets injured or starts to decline. Keeping my fingers crossed on that one. Hail to em!

agree. we'll be competitive..and hopefully more consistent on offense.

with all the change..I'd be very pleased with a playoff appearance. we will address the lines in time....it's just gonna take more tha one season. that's another interesting sidebar to all of this..while mamy of would prefer line drafts in the high rounds.....there is still the chance cerrato is one of the guyswho can uncover the proverbial gems. the odds against that are very long......but let's see what happens!

[Califan007 The Constipated]

are you saying his performance last season qualified him as starting material?

He said "their is no youth in sight outside of the draft pick this season". As of right now, Heyer has shown us more than Reinhart has since Reinhart has yet to play a snap in the NFL or even attend a training camp. So if Reinhart is considered youth worthy of consideration, then so is Heyer.

I think not. he's a feel good story who performed beyond expectations. DC's don't spend nights worrying about how to generate a pass rush off right tackle when he's in the game. the hope is that he continues to mature into an above average NFL tackle with skills/abilities at least proximate to those Jansen had during his better days. we all want this. it's not there now...and that is the key point. don't bet on potential...bet on results. the thing about Hyer is that, from training camp to last game (well, not the playoff game in which he was man-handled) he domeonstrated progress/growth. we don't know yet where this is headed.

I love the argument that we need to be dismissive of players until they make the Pro Bowl. Heyer was promising, performed better than expected, showed improvement during the season, got praise from both Jason Taylor and Michael Strahan, and gives us NO reason to believe he's already peaked after just one season. Will he become a quality starting tackle? Doesn't matter in terms of what we're discussing here. Because what we're discussing here is whether or not the Skins have youth on the O-line that could realistically develop into starter material...not whether or not they're already at that point.

[fansince62]

He said "their is no youth in sight outside of the draft pick this season". As of right now, Heyer has shown us more than Reinhart has since Reinhart has yet to play a snap in the NFL or even attend a training camp. So if Reinhart is considered youth worthy of consideration, then so is Heyer.

I love the argument that we need to be dismissive of players until they make the Pro Bowl. Heyer was promising, performed better than expected, showed improvement during the season, got praise from both Jason Taylor and Michael Strahan, and gives us NO reason to believe he's already peaked after just one season. Will he become a quality starting tackle? Doesn't matter in terms of what we're discussing here. Because what we're discussing here is whether or not the Skins have youth on the O-line that could realistically develop into starter material...not whether or not they're already at that point.

hey there sacramento!

1) worthy of consideration? ok. not sure how that equates to starting caliber NFL player....but we'll see.

2) ummmm...where was anything said about the pro bowl? I don't view Jansen as a consistent pro bowl type talent. who's being dismissive? I highlighted the obvious: new kid learning the ropes. if you want facts go back then and look at the seattle game. he was manhandled. no one said he's dogmeat. it is preposterous to believe, based on what we saw last year, that he is NFL prime time ready. there is every hope, given his performance in preseason and spot duty, that he can move to the next step. he has had issues at time in pass blocking. I didn't pay enough attention in his run blocking role to draw any conclusions. he'll need to get beter as a pass blocker.

[Going Commando]

agree. we'll be competitive..and hopefully more consistent on offense.

with all the change..I'd be very pleased with a playoff appearance. we will address the lines in time....it's just gonna take more tha one season. that's another interesting sidebar to all of this..while mamy of would prefer line drafts in the high rounds.....there is still the chance cerrato is one of the guyswho can uncover the proverbial gems. the odds against that are very long......but let's see what happens!

You are right, it will take time. The rookies probably won't be ready for the first half of the season at the very least (who knows though). Also, we have no reason to believe that JC will come out and blow everyone away given last year's level of performance added to the fact that he is learning another offense. But, I too am optimistic and I'm hoping that now that those essential pieces are in place (and the team has done everything it can to foster his development), he and the skill positions will mature behind the safety blanket of our aging but veteran offensive line. If JC and the receivers can become outstanding players, when the time comes the team will seamlessly replace the OL and groom the young ones up. This is exactly the formula that the Colts have used to so much success, and right now they are in the process of replacing their OL just as we will be in a few seasons. But notice the lack of a drop off even while they are doing this because they are set at QB. This system made Tony Ugoh look like a pro-bowler at times even though he was a rookie.

[Dick Edds]

You make a good point, and I guess I need to sharpen my position to limit this more to the draft. Clayton is basically arguing that the way to field a powerful offense these days is to build the passing game. Granted, an important part of the passing game is pass-protection--I don't want to say that it is irrelevant. What I wanted to say was that it is easier and more common to acquire a good pass protecting unit than it is a good QB. If it's rare to find top offensive linemen outside the draft, it's much more so to find the QB. That is Clayton's point, that because of the rarity of good players at this position, they are the ones who need to be drafted early. Focusing on the offensive line at the expense of getting a QB is heading for trouble--you are building that line to supplement the play of the man who has the ball in his hands every single play, and it will do you no good to have a great line if your qb sucks. (hence the wasting of Jansen and Samuels' best years)

Recent history has shown that a competent line can be built with later picks and free agents, as long as the coaching and the scheme can compensate for it. Special UDFA offensive linemen like Stephon Heyer come about far more often than the Diamonds in the Rough like Tony Romo sits to pee and Derek Anderson do. Because of this, a team has to do place a priority on getting their QB, and 9 our of 10 times it has to be done in the draft. The draft is about picking individuals who can have more of an impact for your team. If Matt Ryan turns into a good QB and John Beck/Chad Henne don't, no matter how good Jake Long ends up being, the Dolphins will sorely regret not picking Ryan instead.

you make a great point, and thanks for clarifying where Clayton was coming from exactly. But to that same point, isn't it a possibility that some QB's who were not drafted early or were not big time prospects, enjoyed success due to the fact that they had great coaching, a great line and/or the majority of the skill players they needed to be effective (eg. Tom Brady or Tony Romo sits to pee)? Likewise there have been plenty of 1st round QB's drafted only to see their entire career over before it started, due to lack of protection (eg. Ramsey or JOey Harrington)?

I agree on the whole that finding a top tie QB to build a team around has more risk/reward associated with it, because they are to an extent the most important position on the field. That being said, there are few players like McNabb or Manning who actually make their team better themselves. It's all a crap shoot, though I can't say I agree that the Dolphins will regret getting Jake Long instead of Matt Ryan, considering they still got Chad Henning, who had success at a big time program and won big-time games as well. Just some food for thought.