OM FIELD: Redskins OL - Tale of the Tape

[thedevilhimself]

I think the collage film on Smith says he could be a good pick at 13. if we take him there though we will get clowned .

I think Vinny has itchey fingers and will trade down in a heart beat if he can . 2002/2008 and target Britton or similar .

The problem is Smith/Other would be a great RT, but do you really want to draft a RT in the first round at 13 ... IF Smith would project as a LT and you could get him motivated then great but if Smith shows some reformation of character, then I think he will be picked before 13 .

I have to agree our line is in bad shape . After the Steelers game pass rushers were in our backfield faster than Campbell. It was embarrassing . Add to that the fans saying go deep go deep ...sure ... thats possible when Campbell cannot finish his 3 step drop without a defender in his grill he is going to make those 7 step deep routes work .

A couple of years ago I would have said our line was amongst the best in the league 2006 springs to mind, the line was opening up huge holes for Betts, but they have gone from veteran and savey to old and broken .

I am not excusing our line but all the lines in the NFCE are not top tier as they used to be with the exception of the NYG and they have built thier line extremely cheaply , I think there is one day 1 pick in there .

Philly has a lot of high round back ups but I would never want to see Winston Justice at LT unless I really really hated Donavon McNabb . Shawn Andrews - if motivated is a top guard in the NFL, but as we saw last year that is nothing to be banked on . Now they have brought in his underachieving brother Stacy to play along side his bro . And then what is happening at the other T spot .

The Cowboys spent a lot on thier line last couple of years . Giving a $30+ to the 30+ Flozell Adams looks to be a mistake . Columbo is solid at RT, and Gourde is over rated but okay at C, I cannot help but think he would be better at G if they can get a solid starter at C . Davis when motivated makes an excellent guard but there are questions at the other G .

[Om]

While I appreciate the analysis, it greatly oversimplifies. If Heyer hadn't gotten injured and replaced by Jansen, we could subtract 2 years and add 2 lbs to the average of our line. With the addition of Dockery that puts us a little light (311lbs avg), but right in the mix age wise (29). It doesn't, however open running lanes or buy JC an extra second or two.

I will agree that size does have an effect, but merely plugging in a big body over a small one does not guarantee anything. Of the tackles available, Andre Smith, the largest, has only shown that he is unwilling to prepare his body and workout properly. The result is he outweighs the other top tackles by a gross margin, it certainly doesn't make him an optimal pick.

The thing about designated starters is that they are generally, other than in the case of injury, the best players at their respective positions on the roster. For all the talk about Stephon Heyer, to me there’s on very simple reason he didn’t return to the starting lineup once healthy last year—he wasn’t a better option than the guy who took his place. For as poorly has Jansen played at times, that’s saying something. I certainly allow for the possibility I’m wrong, but I have never considered Heyer more than a backup ... nor do I project him as one.

At any rate, like I said in the piece, you could look at any one of other teams and find similar instances of “yeah but if you substitute X for Y, the numbers change.” That’s why stats rarely paint a full picture. All I was interested in confirming with the research was if my impression that the Redskins were generally “smaller” than other OL’s in the division had merit. The numbers suggest it did. But that’s not end of the discussion, just a jumping-off point.

We’ll have additional perspective on that when I finish doing the averages for all the ‘08 playoff teams as well. If the Redskins were to be the smallest of that group as well, would you consider the stats to be any less misleading?

[KDawg]

All due respect, Om, because I love your pieces and the research and time you put into them, but evaluating an offensive line on height, weight and age alone won't tell you anything. I realize you elluded to that in your post, but the fact remains there is no way to accurately assess an offensive line (or any position for that matter) based on these factors.

How do they get off the football?

What gaps are they weak in in pass and run schemes?

How do they handle the blitz?

If I had game film I'd love to sit down and break it all down for everyone here, but I don't. So it's understandable that this is all that we have to go by as fans without access to all the games. But it doesn't really mean all that much.

The age thing is the biggest factor of the three you looked at, in my opinion. We need to get younger on the line in a hurry. That's a huge problem.

[Om]

Absolutely true, KDawg. Which is why I stressed (three times, I believe) in the piece that size was only one part of the equation. Age is another part, of course, which when combined with size make a rather larger part, but still just a part. I do think both, singly and together, are worth noting as part of the greater picture, however.

*

One thing I'm surprised no one has brought up is the seemingly key question of whether bigger is necessarily even better in a WCO? I would argue it's a notable factor in the traditional smashmouth NFCE style of football ... but in even a "modified" WCO, where quickness and mobility may be at least as valuable if not more than size and power?

[TheLongshot]

The thing about designated starters is that they are generally, other than in the case of injury, the best players at their respective positions on the roster. For all the talk about Stephon Heyer, to me there’s on very simple reason he didn’t return to the starting lineup once healthy last year—he wasn’t a better option than the guy who took his place. For as poorly has Jansen played at times, that’s saying something. I certainly allow for the possibility I’m wrong, but I have never considered Heyer more than a backup ... nor do I project him as one.

The way I viewed things is that the team decided to go with the strength of the offense, and that was running the ball. While Jansen isn't the pass protector he used to be, he's still a very strong run blocker and I think they decided to sacrifice some protection to go with that strength.

I still think that Heyer has the opportunity to make the RT job his own. I think a lot of it is up to him. I do doubt that Jansen and Heyer will be the only RTs on the roster in training camp.

[TheLongshot]

One thing I'm surprised no one has brought up is the seemingly key question of whether bigger is necessarily even better in a WCO? I would argue it's a notable factor in the traditional smashmouth NFCE style of football ... but in even a "modified" WCO, where quickness and mobility may be at least as valuable if not more than size and power?

Well, one thing I did want to point out is that despite the Cowboys having one of the larger lines in the league, I don't think it is a real good line. I also think that despite the fact that both the Cowboys and the Eagles have drafted a lot of OL, they've also missed a lot at those positions as well. I think most mocks expect that OL is yet again a strong need for the Eagles.

Just because a team drafts more at a position doesn't mean they are doing a good job drafting at that position (see us and linebackers). So simply the fact that other teams have been drafting more isn't by itself an indicator that they are doing a better job than we are.

[Oldfan]

One thing I'm surprised no one has brought up is the seemingly key question of whether bigger is necessarily even better in a WCO? I would argue it's a notable factor in the traditional smashmouth NFCE style of football ... but in even a "modified" WCO, where quickness and mobility may be at least as valuable if not more than size and power?

I don't associate the size of the linemen with WCO-style offense. Shanahan's running game in Denver used lighter, more athletic linemen with zone-blocking techniques. Holmgren used bigger men in his conventional running game.

I'd like to know how much of the weight is fat. Samuels played better at a lower weight couple of years ago. Jansen's weight last season was 30% fat. He's determined to drop that to 10% which should make him a tad quicker and give him more stamina this year.

You can look at Andre Smith and see that he's carrying too much fat.

[DiscoBob]

If they traded back, they could probably draft:

1) Alex Mack

2) Phil Loadholt

and moved Jansen into Guard.

Then the stats would be

age: 27

weight: 320

I don't know if Jansen could play guard, but he still seems to be a decent run blocker, but is just too slow on the outside....

[KDawg]

The WCO itself doesn't dictate what type of linemen used.

The WCO is really a passing attack. Traditionally, it's paired with a zone scheme which uses quicker, more athletic linemen which is what OF pointed out.

But if it uses a power run game, it's going to want maulers.

What I'm confused about is what kind of run game Zorn even wants to employ. We used zone towards the end of last season, but we also used power elements. Perhaps a hybrid, who knows. *shrug*

[Never4get#21]

I would like a comparison to defensive line changes also. The Skins dominated the 80s with the HOG because we were the biggest and badest. Size doesnt always equate to athletism. Heyer has the size and age but would not start for any other team in the league. A. Smith has the size and all the scouts are telling him to lose alittle. There are tackles(Adams, Thomas, Runyan) on this small list that are all bigger than him yet they are calling him fat and telling him to slim down. Bottom line is on tape Smith is very quick/atheletic for his size. I think there's a shift more toward athletic quick OL because of all the tweeners now in the NFL. Defensive speed kills size anyday.

[Neophyte]

The WCO itself doesn't dictate what type of linemen used.

And yet I keep reading posts here from armchair QBs claiming just that. In fact, when Vinny announced the move to the WCO a year ago the great hue and cry here (other than Jason not being a WCO QB) was that the line wasn't right for it and one of the major factors always listed was the size of guys starting. Too big I kept reading.

[KDawg]

And yet I keep reading posts here from armchair QBs claiming just that. In fact, when Vinny announced the move to the WCO a year ago the great hue and cry here (other than Jason not being a WCO QB) was that the line wasn't right for it and one of the major factors always listed was the size of guys starting. Too big I kept reading.

For a zone scheme, our line may have been too big (but according to Om's research, that point may have even been slightly off point). But we employed more of a power game for the beginning of the year.

People go by what they hear, and if you're not someone who studies the game, things like that happen on fan forums. It's up to those of us who study the game to try to educate people

[Dick Edds]

Just because a team drafts more at a position doesn't mean they are doing a good job drafting at that position (see us and linebackers). So simply the fact that other teams have been drafting more isn't by itself an indicator that they are doing a better job than we are.

No, but it drastically improves your chances of finding the "right" player though ... are you trying to insinuate that if Vinny drafts well and finds an immediate starter, that somehow all the draft picks the Eagles, Giants and Cowboys have used on OL'man are a wash or even?

OL'man are like any other player, they often need time to develop, and whether or not an early draft pick is pressed into starting duty early in his career, is also not the only indicator of a successful draft pick.

When one of our OL'man go down with injury how does it affect our team? If I were a betting man I would say exponentially WORSE than any other team in the division ... and this is including the 9 sack performance by the Giants on McNabb last year, bad days happen.

[SirClintonPortis]

The WCO itself doesn't dictate what type of linemen used.

Damn straight. Steve Young wants the 1993 Cowboys O-line as his dream team WCO O-line, and that was built for Mr. grammatically challenged, Malcolm Kelly's favorite player, and Joe Buck's color commentator.

[TheLongshot]

No, but it drastically improves your chances of finding the "right" player though ... are you trying to insinuate that if Vinny drafts well and finds an immediate starter, that somehow all the draft picks the Eagles, Giants and Cowboys have used on OL'man are a wash or even?

OL'man are like any other player, they often need time to develop, and whether or not an early draft pick is pressed into starting duty early in his career, is also not the only indicator of a successful draft pick.

When one of our OL'man go down with injury how does it affect our team? If I were a betting man I would say exponentially WORSE than any other team in the division ... and this is including the 9 sack performance by the Giants on McNabb last year, bad days happen.

I'm not trying to excuse the current situation, which has mainly come about because of the picks we didn't have for deals that didn't work out well at all. What I am saying is that this line has been a pretty good one for a while now and, until 2007, there really wasn't much of a need to spend high draft picks on the line. Certainly, we could have done a better job with the late round picks we have made on the OL.

You are correct that O-Linemen need time to develop. Problem is, OL is a unique position where you can't just rotate guys into the game to get them ready. At the same time, they are guys who need to get ready to go in at a moment's notice. It is why you find a lot of journeymen OL who have bounced around the league a few times backing up starters. It is also why it is hard to come up as a late round pick.

[Oldfan]

What I'm confused about is what kind of run game Zorn even wants to employ. We used zone towards the end of last season, but we also used power elements. Perhaps a hybrid, who knows. *shrug*

I recall Al Saunders saying that we were a zone-blocking team in 2006. But, just from eyeballing it, my guess is that he meant we were more than 50% zone-blocking. It seemed to me that we were still relying on power in short-yardage and red zone situations.

I thought Denver's running game was a bit overrated in its glory years. It produced a gaudy YPC because it gave you homeruns, but it was weak in ball control consistency, short yardage and red zone situations -- so a hybrid makes sense to me.

What do you think?

[Dick Edds]

I'm not trying to excuse the current situation, which has mainly come about because of the picks we didn't have for deals that didn't work out well at all. What I am saying is that this line has been a pretty good one for a while now and, until 2007, there really wasn't much of a need to spend high draft picks on the line. Certainly, we could have done a better job with the late round picks we have made on the OL.

You are correct that O-Linemen need time to develop. Problem is, OL is a unique position where you can't just rotate guys into the game to get them ready. At the same time, they are guys who need to get ready to go in at a moment's notice. It is why you find a lot of journeymen OL who have bounced around the league a few times backing up starters. It is also why it is hard to come up as a late round pick.

Fair enough and yes you are right, I agree, just was wondering where you were coming from.

[eljeasel]

I recall Al Saunders saying that we were a zone-blocking team in 2006. But, just from eyeballing it, my guess is that he meant we were more than 50% zone-blocking. It seemed to me that we were still relying on power in short-yardage and red zone situations.

I thought Denver's running game was a bit overrated in its glory years. It produced a gaudy YPC because it gave you homeruns, but it was weak in ball control consistency, short yardage and red zone situations -- so a hybrid makes sense to me.

What do you think?

I dont want to shortchange the value of a home run, but when your defense cant create turnovers, the ability to control the ball might actually outweigh a few homeruns.

[Om]

I'm not trying to excuse the current situation, which has mainly come about because of the picks we didn't have for deals that didn't work out well at all. What I am saying is that this line has been a pretty good one for a while now and, until 2007, there really wasn't much of a need to spend high draft picks on the line.

The FO has defintely agreed with you for the past few years, but I fundamentally disagree on this point. You're right--the line was a strength for a few years. Where I think the team seriously missed the boat was in developing any quality in-house depth behind them. When your starters are all pushing 30, someone needs to mention to the brain trust that the time to draft and start grooming replacements to be ready to step in--and dare I say, even upgrade?--is not when the entire starting group starts breaking down due to age, but 2-3 years prior. They didn't, and now they've got a fire on their hands.

I think maybe someone left Fred Davis in charge of setting the alarm.

[moondog]

This would do a number for our backups as well knocking Fabini off the roster but I don't feel like doing the math again on that one.

People need to understand Fabini is a UFA right now and there has been nothing about us bringing him back. While I would assume they will after the draft depending on how it goes, there is a good chance we draft some young linemen and don't re-sign him. Same goes for Geisinger. I think they are ready to let those guys go and bring in Clark from the practice squad and I believe they feel Rhino got better at the end of the year and is ready to be on the active roster on gamedays as a backup.

[TheLongshot]

The FO has defintely agreed with you for the past few years, but I fundamentally disagree on this point. You're right--the line was a strength for a few years. Where I think the team seriously missed the boat was in developing any quality in-house depth behind them. When your starters are all pushing 30, someone needs to mention to the brain trust that the time to draft and start grooming replacements to be ready to step in--and dare I say, even upgrade?--is not when the entire starting group starts breaking down due to age, but 2-3 years prior. They didn't, and now they've got a fire on their hands.

I think maybe someone left Fred Davis in charge of setting the alarm.

No argument there. You'd think Gibbs, who was in charge during that time, would know that. Maybe he trusted in Buges rosy outlook on the line. Maybe he was thinking too short term being the head coach.

At the same time, tho, Gibbs kinda kicked himself in the shins by trading away a good bit of the 2007 draft where they probably would have been likely to address some of those issues. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds were places where we could have found some of that depth.

I don't know if I agree that we "have a fire on our hands" now. Samuels and Rabach should be good for a few more years. Dock will nail down LG well enough. Rinehart can start getting up to speed on being Thomas' eventual replacement. The only real outstanding issue right now is RT.

[Going Commando]

I'm still not onboard with drafting Smith - even though he's huge. He just seems like such a risk. If you're going to spend your 1st rd pick on someone at least make sure he doesn't have character issues that could get him in trouble somewhere down the line.

That said, perhaps the skins locker room will be able to keep him out of trouble as Gibbs 2.0 made it known he would only accept character players on the team. The skins players certainly don't get arrested as much as other teams players.

mmm I hate to say it but Sean Taylor had way more character flaws than Andre Smith does. So Gibbs 2.0 wasn't going to take character over talent in every instance.

Second, I think you are grossly overstating Andre Smith's "character problems". More than anything else, his behavior demonstrated a lack of understanding of the pre-draft process.

I mean what did he do? He talked to an agent too early, and then didn't prepare for the combine. That's it.

He's never been arrested, never failed a drug test, never failed out of school (B.J. Raji?), and never been accused of being a bad teammate. What more can you ask from the kid?

This whole character crap has been constructed the draftnik media because he went against the grain and foolishly devalued the importance of the combine as a pre-draft ritual. I'll say it again it was foolish, and immature, in the same way it would be to show up to a job interview without a shirt and tie or with a big ugly stain on your pants. It's bad form but it has little to do with your past performance or future ability. And we have a large body of evidence for his resume that is outstanding.

[Neophyte]

I don't know if I agree that we "have a fire on our hands" now. Samuels and Rabach should be good for a few more years. Dock will nail down LG well enough. Rinehart can start getting up to speed on being Thomas' eventual replacement. The only real outstanding issue right now is RT.

I am not sure I agree with this. I mean it looks good on a "body for a body" basis maybe but when you start looking at details it I don't think it holds water. Samuels should be good for a few more years...as long as he is healthy but we all saw what happened last year when he went down for the end of the season with an injury that would have ended his year regardless of which game it happened in. The same is likely true for Thomas. Most people here thing at least Jansen is done now and more than a few put Rabach in that same catagory. Rinehard was a LT in college and drafted to play LG for us so thinking he can make the move to RG when he obviously was not ready to go at LG yet (why else sign Dock again?) is somewhat wishful thinking to me. Fabini is really too old now. Heyer is looking more and more like a decent short term backup but not a starter.

I think we need to drop some serious work into this group as a whole.

Look at Philly as an example. They have had great starters for a decade now, most of whom were in their prime. They kept drafting linemen though, some in the early rounds. This last year when they lost a starter they had a guy on the bench who came in and preformed just as well as the starter. When that backup guy got hurt, they brought in yet another backup without missing a beat. Three guys deep at one position and little or not drop in performance.

[Going Commando]

No argument there. You'd think Gibbs, who was in charge during that time, would know that. Maybe he trusted in Buges rosy outlook on the line. Maybe he was thinking too short term being the head coach.

At the same time, tho, Gibbs kinda kicked himself in the shins by trading away a good bit of the 2007 draft where they probably would have been likely to address some of those issues. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds were places where we could have found some of that depth.

I don't know if I agree that we "have a fire on our hands" now. Samuels and Rabach should be good for a few more years. Dock will nail down LG well enough. Rinehart can start getting up to speed on being Thomas' eventual replacement. The only real outstanding issue right now is RT.

I'd like to see an upgrade over Rabach sometime in the near future. This is a great Center class, it seems like we could draft his replacement now and eventually work him in. Rabach is pedestrian, and his strength is supposed to be that he is a savvy player. But more than anything, I remember him committing some atrocious penalties last year so I don't know how much I believe that. Add to that, his size and athletic ability are somewhat of a liability. We can do way better than him at the position.

Also, we can't be entirely sure how Dockery is going to fare in the new offense we are running, and Rinehart is a pretty unknown quantity. It's a bit of a leap of faith to assume we are going to be fine at gaurd and not worry about drafting the position for the while.

But I'm with you, I think that if we got outstanding play from our right tackle next year (via Andre Smith?) then our entire line would suddenly look way better.

I think it would go a long way towards addressing the future health of the position if we drafted Andre Smith or Michael Oher in the first round and then grabbed a solid center prospect in the 3rd or 5th to develop. Oher and Smith come with the bonus that you know they can move over to LT once Samuels retires, filling a short-term and crucial long-term position of need.

People who want defense would go crazy, but the needs there aren't pressing and we can always shore that up next year. I say take advantage of the strengths of the draft class.

[Dick Edds]

People who want defense would go crazy, but the needs there aren't pressing and we can always shore that up next year. I say take advantage of the strengths of the draft class.

+1 ... it ain't about just bringing in one top OT prospect either, cuz who knows what will happen with injury and developmental issues ... we need AT LEAST 2 OL'man to be drafted, IMO ... preferably with our first 2 picks.