My Slug Witucki Theory for Drafting O-Line Talent

[Oldfan]

Meatsnack, since your last post didn't respond to my question...(Your claim that these four DEs have longer arms than our taller RTs defies the odds. Can you support your claim?)... I'll assume you won't try to support your claim.

So, we are left with the evidence that the four DEs I've mentioned are shorter, lighter in weight and not likely to have longer arms than our taller, heavier OTs and yet they were able to bull rush and even injure two of them in the same game (Kampmann 2007).

So, your answer to why men 6’ tall are better offensive linemen due to leverage advantage is to use DE’s between 6’4” and 6’5” as an example?

I can't give you six-footer examples because the NFL scouts aren't drafting them. My argument is that they should be doing it more often. However, by giving you shorter, lighter players using leverage to bull rush and dominate taller, heavier OTs, I've demonstrated the principle at work.

YOURS is the extraordinary claim demanding extraordinary proofs.

There's nothing extraordinary about the importance of leverage in football.

Every bit of actual reality, that is, the men who start in the league and the men who scout and draft them at O-line favors the view that size matters.

There are two things wrong with your statement. I haven't argued that size doesn't matter. And, since I'm making an argument that the NFL experts are wrong, it's rather silly to counter that I'm wrong because the experts don't agree.

Then, you ask me to justify “my” theory as if the entire NFL didn’t draft according to a formula that precludes OTs from being shorter than 6’4” and damned few OGs shorter than 6’3”.

Wrong. You claimed that the four DEs I mentioned had longer arms than our taller OTs. Since that claim in unlikely to be true, I asked you to support it.

DE’s are drafted with length as a primary criterion for the position due to exactly the kind of hand-fighting issues I have discussed.

Granted. But you are still confronted with the fact that the shorter DEs are not likely to have longer arms than the taller OTs.

So are most offensive line positions, even center, a position in which height is less emphasized but which will see AQ Shipley slide to late day 2 or go undrafted for exactly these reasons. Any draft pundit, scout, draft publication, or GM on the planet will confirm this.

Granted. You are merely confirming my assertion that the scouts and draft pundits put far too much emphasis on height and weight.

You know, the tactic of deriding the poster rather than the content of the post is a sign of weakness and is intellectually bankrupt.

I stated the obvious. The following statement, your first on this point, indicates a lack of understanding of the relationship of mass to leverage:

Simple physics tells us that the extra junk means it is that much harder to get that man moving in a direction opposite that in which he started, leverage or no leverage.

Now, you write.

When you can come up with a physics based explanation as to why mass does not mitigate leverage, I’ll be happy to read it. Otherwise your insults are just grasping at straws.

This is a different statement than your first; but it still shows a lack of understanding. If you want to say that mass "mitigates" leverage, fine -- but then it's equally true that leverage mitigates mass -- so your initial "leverage or no leverage" assertion is nonsense.

What do any of these men have to do with your theory on O-line play?

Nothing much really. Those men contradict your absurd assertion that bigger players have more stamina.

Their lack of height did not empower them to “root out” much bigger D-linemen?

Denver's zone-blocking made no attempt to root anyone out.

Well, as if it had anything to do with your theory, a better wording would have been, all teams have used it at one time or another starting pretty quickly after had proved its usefulness in the league.

Zone blocking was popularized by Alex Gibbs In the late 90s. Joe Gibbs was an early copycat in 2004 when he added some plays for Portis. It's my impression that most teams now use some zone-blocking.

That might be true if the smaller, more agile backs typically used for running routes and pass catching were capable between the tackles runners as well but they are not.

I see. You have a new claim. Power backs can't be good receivers. Never heard that before.

Walsh didn’t switch blocking schemes, his schemes were forced upon him by small offensive linemen.

What difference does it make WHY he switched? He switched. Therefore, there is no run-blocking scheme associated with the WCO -- a point you have already granted unless I misread you.

Didn’t you just talk about the more agile linemen being used in Denver to zone block?

Since when did Denver's WCO get anointed the "pure WCO?" Most observers have said that Holmgren's scheme is closest to the basic WCO principles. Denver and Seattle: Two very different run-blocking schemes.

If you refuse to admit the most basic and visible aspects of modern line play then it is clear that logical discourse with you is impossible. I will close with this: A taller, longer-armed man can get into a smaller man before he can get his arms into the bigger man. Therefore, the smaller man cannot exert any significant force on the larger man at all before smaller man takes the initial blow that slows and/or knocks him off balance.

As I've said repeatedly, longer arms are an advantage only if the player can get leverage. That's surely why some coaches teach hand placement using a blocking sled in what they call "leverage drills."

If the OT is big, tall guy is an equal athlete, capable of using his body as well as his shorter, lighter opponent, great. If he can't, his massive junk will get straightened up and shoved into the QB's lap.

[ncr2h]

You can't seriously think that your theory is correct when there is no existing evidence that your theory is correct (i.e. there are no short offensive linemen currently succeeding in the league). You can't blame this one on scouts. If shorter linemen were superior, the cream would have risen to the top and somebody would have figured it out by now. Coaches will do whatever it takes to win - you're telling me they won't pursue shorter linemen because it goes against NFL tradition?

Also, your evidence of Aaron Kampman, etc. has a couple of problems:

(1) They are DEs, but your theory is supposed to apply to OL.

(2) They aren't short.

^^ You put those two together and you see that the example was irrelevant.

Can't you see that you're probably wrong when the guy responding to you is referencing actual, real world offensive line techniques currently being employed in the league today, but you continue to rely on "basic physics concepts" that you can't explain in detail?

[Oldfan]

ncr2h: You're repeating arguments already made by Meatsnack which I have already countered, but I'll play along and repeat myself.

You can't seriously think that your theory is correct when there is no existing evidence that your theory is correct...

There's plently of existing evidence in the form of elementary physics and on the football field.

Coaches will do whatever it takes to win - -- you're telling me they won't pursue shorter linemen because it goes against NFL tradition?

Who said anything about tradition? You've created a strawman.

Also, your evidence of Aaron Kampman, etc. has a couple of problems:

(1) They are DEs, but your theory is supposed to apply to OL.

(2) They aren't short.

From my OP:

So, my theory is that NFL teams have gone way overboard on the size factor in evaluating O line talent. Yes, the typical man six-six can add more muscle mass on his frame than a man six feet tall, but if he's frequently at a leverage disadvantage, what good is it? I think the Skins could find excellent O line talent by looking for the shorter, lighter, narrow-waisted, wide-body types overlooked by most NFL teams.

Using the performances of four DEs relatively shorter and lighter than our OTs, I'm proving a LEVERAGE DISADVANTAGE.

Can't you see that you're probably wrong when the guy responding to you is referencing actual, real world offensive line techniques currently being employed in the league today, but you continue to rely on "basic physics concepts" that you can't explain in detail?

You were supposed to have learned about leverage as it applies to physics in the sixth grade. As it applies to football, here are the Google page results for "football leverage drills" which rendered 70,100 hits. It should not take more than a quick reading of the brief descriptions for you to learn that, on both offense and defense, the use of the hands (where arm length is a factor) is inextricably linked to leverage.

It's basic football and basic physics. It's really not hard to understand how, in a single game, a shorter, lighter Aaron Kampmann, with his bull rushes, can cause taller, heavier players like Todd Wade to strain a groin and Stephon Heyer to strain a hammy.

Without the athleticism to match their opponents, big boys like Heyer and Wade are prey. My position is that we'd have better luck with shorter, lighter, wide-body OTs with athleticism equal to the DEs they will face.

[MassSkinsFan]

Now I have always liked the idea of teaching judo/jujitsu/aikido line techniques to redirect the opponents energy/momentum, but then you never know whether you'll be redirecting them into your own guy or not.

No joke - I had an OL coach who touched on this, and it did come in handy a few times when I was up against much bigger guys. Unfortunately, you have to pick your spots with something like this because once the DL is onto the stratagem, it's over.

Also, there are certain line calls where everyone fakes one way on the snap count relying on the DL training to go against resistance - kind of like a deke in hockey. So, if I want to block you to my right I would fire out at your left shoulder, hoping you would fight against that perceived block and head to my right. At that point I would swing my butt to the left and block you to the right. When this works, it's good, but it's hard to get it to work.

[MassSkinsFan]

Without the athleticism to match their opponents, big boys like Heyer and Wade are prey. My position is that we'd have better luck with shorter, lighter, wide-body OTs with athleticism equal to the DEs they will face.

I think this is the crux of the argument. Regardless of relative size this is a critical factor. An OL with superior athleticism can overcome perceived size disadvantages by having more stamina, firing off the line more quickly and thus being first to engage and control, being able to adjust more readily while the play unfolds, etc. etc.

Your theory states that the size factor is emphasized too much, and that smaller guys who are superior athletes should also be considered. Nowhere do you say (as I think some posters perceive) that big guys are no good - you just say that smaller guys can get the job done too in some cases.

I agree.

[Thirtyfive2seven]

The problem with Rhino's is getting them to run on the damn snap count. Tried. Failed.

[Oldfan]

I think this is the crux of the argument. Regardless of relative size this is a critical factor. An OL with superior athleticism can overcome perceived size disadvantages by having more stamina, firing off the line more quickly and thus being first to engage and control, being able to adjust more readily while the play unfolds, etc. etc.

Your theory states that the size factor is emphasized too much, and that smaller guys who are superior athletes should also be considered. Nowhere do you say (as I think some posters perceive) that big guys are no good - you just say that smaller guys can get the job done too in some cases.

I agree.

Summed up nicely. Thank you.

As for your agreement with Jumbo on the value of martial arts training applied to lineplay, have you considered the value of canoe paddling instead? Vince Manuwai, who has started every game at guard since drafted by the Jags until he was injured last season, had this to say about his paddling experience before he was selected in the 2002 draft.

“I think it helped me develop, in fact I am pretty sure of it,” Manuwai said, “A lot of what you do in pass blocking is leverage: using your upper body to control the defensive players. With paddling, you have to control the canoe and work rhythmically. It built me up a lot. It’s definitely tougher than it sounds. You wouldn’t believe it.”

Built short by NFL standards and squatty like a World’s Strongest Man competitor — you know, the guys who toss tree trunks like darts and lift the back ends of trucks holding a dozen Caribbean children — Manuwai admits he is somewhat of an odd size for offensive guard, but he also has plenty to say to captious scouts about his ability to get the job done.

“I think (scouts) will see that I can play,” Manuwai said. “I’d like to think I am one of the best pass blockers out there. I play with leverage. When we (face defensive linemen’s) stunts, I face those well. I can also run-block — I can adjust to that. I don’t think (my size) is that big a disadvantage.”

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/NFLDraft/Draft+Extras/2002/profile120502.htm

[Meatsnack]

Meatsnack, since your last post didn't respond to my question...(Your claim that these four DEs have longer arms than our taller RTs defies the odds. Can you support your claim?)... I'll assume you won't try to support your claim.

I never said the DE's in question have longer arms than our tackles and you cannot find a single post of mine to support your claim that I did. I'll say this with a simple logical exercise in hopes that it sinks in:

DE: 6'5" (Kerney or Kampman) vs. OT: 6'6" (Jansen) or 6'7" (Heyer)

Their arms will be within an inch or two of one another because teams draft for length at these positions.

This in no way supports your baseless, unsupported assertion that 6' tall men make better O-linemen no matter how you weasel around it.

So, we are left with the evidence that the four DEs I've mentioned are shorter, lighter in weight and not likely to have longer arms than our taller, heavier OTs and yet they were able to bull rush and even injure two of them in the same game (Kampmann 2007).

Your examples are not shorter than the average O-lineman or even meaningfully so than our O-linmen who are 6'5" (Samuels) and 6'6" (Jansen). How does this equate to your theory of 6'0 men starting on O-line vs. 6’5” defenders?

If you are talking about Heyer (6'7") being beaten consistently by Kampman (6'5") then I would say that you are embarrassing yourself to pimp your theory. Kampman and Kerney both are first round draft picks and multi-pro bowl defensive ends going up against an undrafted Free agent who wasn't even a starter before injury thrust him into the lineup. Your ridiculous implication that their superior "leverage" is the deciding factor that enabled them to win that match-up is sad.

I can't give you six-footer examples because the NFL scouts aren't drafting them. My argument is that they should be doing it more often. However, by giving you shorter, lighter players using leverage to bull rush and dominate taller, heavier OTs, I've demonstrated the principle at work.

No, you've demostrated your ability to deny reality and grasp at straws. Not only are D-line techniques and O-line techniques vastly different and not comparable but the men in your examples are the same average height as the NFL OTs they go up against. This actually negates your theory.

...Wrong. You claimed that the four DEs I mentioned had longer arms than our taller OTs. Since that claim in unlikely to be true, I asked you to support it.

This is either an attempt to lie and put words in my mouth or just wrong. Please show me where I stated that your named DE's have longer arms than our OTs? You cannot. I said over and over that the short O-lineman in your example could not deliver the first blow against the tall DE's prevalent in the league and that, especially in the passing game, they could not hope to compete and win because they cannot deliver a blow before the defender does. The fact that there are no short OTs in the league very much supports my claim.

Further, I brought up the ways in which a much taller man can bring leverage to bear on a smaller man. Both because of the reach of a taller man in the hand punch and because being able to bear down on the smaller man from above means that any imbalance forward on the part of the defender results in them being easily driven to ground. You conveniently ignore this because it disproves your pet theory, again, and is easily visible on tape and even casual watchers of football have seen it.

This is a different statement than your first; but it still shows a lack of understanding. If you want to say that mass "mitigates" leverage, fine -- but then it's equally true that leverage mitigates mass -- so your initial "leverage or no leverage" assertion is nonsense.

One of us routinely spouts nonsense but it isn't me. A big man will hit a smaller man before the smaller man can make contact all other things being equal. Because the bigger man can pre-emptively knock the smaller man off-balance or slow down his rush using his hands, the extra mass of the bigger man then allows him to absorb the onrush of the defender. By the time the smaller man is in range and can engage the bigger man, whatever theoretical leverage advantage he might have, the damage is done and the play has moved on. I've provided multiple examples of why your theory doesn't hold water and you routinely ignore them. If you think that leverage is the only principle at work in line play and that nothing else trumps it, you are beyond any help rationality can give.

Nothing much really. Those men contradict your absurd assertion that bigger players have more stamina.

Once again you lie and put words in my mouth.

In post #22 of this thread you said: “It's the biggest players in the league who are short-winded and need to take plays off.” And I countered that the biggest men in the league are OTs and later provided examples in post #49 of OTs who are all 6’7” or better and at or over 350# and presented the fact that OTs don’t come out except for injury. Your counter example of nose tackles are all shorter men and little if any heavier and has nothing to do with your theory about short O-linemen. I very reasonably pointed out that defensive linemen, large or small, all rotate out because they burn more energy than O-linemen reacting and attacking. You could have countered it by presenting snap statistics if you cared to but 1) they don’t support your theory and 2) it is apparently easier for you to try to twist what I said. But keep trying, as Mao said, “Any lie spoken often enough and forcefully enough eventually comes to be regarded as the truth.”

Denver's zone-blocking made no attempt to root anyone out.

So, their smaller linemen, now replaced, didn’t offer them quite the leverage advantage your theory proposes, eh?

As for the idea that zone blocking isn’t for that, wrong. Zone blocking is designed to create double-teams at the point of attack on running plays and do exactly that. See this article for an explanation.

I see. You have a new claim. Power backs can't be good receivers. Never heard that before.

I see you still enjoy lying or you have deep seated reading comprehension issues. I said, “If you are talking about the original West Coast Offense as designed by Walsh, there is a certain type of running scheme because it emphasized agile backs who can catch. Even as late as Roger Craig, the WCO was not a power running offense.” That seems like pretty comprehensible, standard English to me.

What difference does it make WHY he switched? He switched. Therefore, there is no run-blocking scheme associated with the WCO -- a point you have already granted unless I misread you.

It matters if at al because you said in post # 43, “How often Walsh used his RB in the passing game is not relevant to his choice of scheme in run-blocking.

I have read that Walsh switched from power to finesse blocking, or the other way around. I'm not sure which; but it really doesn't matter because the WCO is not defined by any particular run-blocking scheme.” I replied in post #49 that he inherited a smaller O-line in Cincinnati and provided this link to back it up. The finesse blocking schemes he developed were forced upon him but kept ever after by Walsh.

Now comes the hard part: logic. Smaller, weaker O-linemen predicate against a power running game just as they encourage a short-drop passing game. They are, thus, intimately connected.

Two of Walsh’s coaching descendants incorporated the power running game into the WCO. First Seifert switched with Ricky Watters, and then Holmgren. Reid and Chucky never went with power back starters and Shanahan experimented with it only briefly.

As I've said repeatedly, longer arms are an advantage only if the player can get leverage. That's surely why some coaches teach hand placement using a blocking sled in what they call "leverage drills."

*sigh* I will respond to this exactly as before: without the ability to get into the body of the other man, no leverage can be attained in the time allowed by an average football play. In order for a much smaller man/short armed man to get into the body of a much larger/long armed man he must somehow offset that deficit with remarkable speed or strength outside the norms of his position. This is something that your posts have completely ignored, presumably because it is an inconvenient bit of reality countering your theory. Such physically gifted quick/strong men are highly unlikely to be available late in/after the draft as you have posited.

If the OT is big, tall guy is an equal athlete, capable of using his body as well as his shorter, lighter opponent, great. If he can't, his massive junk will get straightened up and shoved into the QB's lap.

Anyone who has ever had anything to do with football will tell you that, and particularly on the lines, the best athletes are on the defensive side of the ball. So, the battle is one-sided in that respect. O-linemen routinely face more athletic men and counter with size, better anticipation due to foreknowledge of the play being run, and technique.

In particular the modern O-line relies on punches and hand-placement to steer the other man. All the “leverage” in the world is unrealized if you are routinely taking a punch in the chest or shoulders from a man who can bench 600# before you can even reach him.

Also, who ever suggested that we should draft “massive”, unathletic men? Not me and not anyone else in this thread. Yours is the draft theory and the indisputable fact that not a single college team out of hundreds recruits using your criteria and not a single pro team drafts using it signals that it is without merit until you can offer something concrete to raise even a shadow of doubt otherwise.

Last, congratulations, your constant lies and distortions have driven me from the thread. It is obvious to me now that you have no interest in rational discourse but only promoting your own, completely unproven/unprovable version of reality. May you have much joy of it.

[Oldfan]

Meatsnack: I never said the DE's in question have longer arms than our tackles and you cannot find a single post of mine to support your claim that I did.

How else does one interpret your post #34? ...

All of the DE's you mention are between 6'4" and 6'6" with arms like an orangutan...

This in no way supports your baseless, unsupported assertion that 6' tall men make better O-linemen no matter how you weasel around it.

Strawman argument. I never said that.

I said that height and weight are over-emphasized factors and that the shorter, squattier lineman has a natural leverage advantage.

If you are talking about Heyer (6'7") being beaten consistently by Kampman (6'5") then I would say that you are embarrassing yourself to pimp your theory.

You are referring to my example of the Green Bay game of 2007 in which both Heyer (6'7') and Wade (6'8") were injured by the bull rushes of Aaron Kampman who, at (6'4"), is three inches shorter than Heyer and four inches shorter than Wade in addition to being outweighed 30-40 pounds by both.

Kampman and Kerney both are first round draft picks and multi-pro bowl defensive ends going up against an undrafted Free agent who wasn't even a starter before injury thrust him into the lineup.

Kampmann was a fifth round pick. Wade was drafted in the second round. Kampmann turned out to be the much better player because his superior athleticism and ability to play with leverage negates the height and weight advantages of less athletic players like Wade

Your ridiculous implication that their superior "leverage" is the deciding factor that enabled them to win that match-up is sad.

So, in your opinion, this scout's comment about Aaron Kampmann as a college player should be disregarded as ridiculous and sad then?

"Plays low with leverage, works his hands and keeps his feet driving forward"

How about the comments of (6'2") Vince Manuai, the Jags' guard I mentioned in an earlier post. Are they also ridiculous and sad?

“A lot of what you do in pass blocking is leverage: using your upper body to control the defensive players...“I’d like to think I am one of the best pass blockers out there. I play with leverage... I don’t think (my size) is that big a disadvantage.”

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2002/draft/players/99958.html

[because of longer arms] A big man will hit a smaller man before the smaller man can make contact all other things being equal.

All other things being equal? The point is that all other things are rarely equal.

How often are the taller, heavier big men equal to shorter, lighter men in athleticism, quickness, upper body strength, agility and all the other factors? The point of my argument is that, coming out of college, players like Todd Wade at six-eight are too often more highly regarded by NFL scouts than players like Aaron Kampman at six-four or Vince Manuwai at six-two because of over-emphasis on size and under-emphasis on leverage.

The main advantage of arm length is that helps OTs steer speed rushers wide of the pocket. It is not important in gaining leverage. That's why "playing low" and "getting underneath the pads" has been emphasized by football coaches since the game was invented.

Last, congratulations, your constant lies and distortions have driven me from the thread. It is obvious to me now that you have no interest in rational discourse but only promoting your own, completely unproven/unprovable version of reality. May you have much joy of it.

One of us is making sounds like a sore loser. I'll let readers decide which.

[MassSkinsFan]

As for your agreement with Jumbo on the value of martial arts training applied to lineplay, have you considered the value of canoe paddling instead? Vince Manuwai, who has started every game at guard since drafted by the Jags until he was injured last season, had this to say about his paddling experience before he was selected in the 2002 draft.

Now that's ironic - I hadn't heard of this, but I did do some canoeing in my growing years and it probably helped. One thing I was good at was being quick off the line. Don't get me wrong, I've always been slower than molasses in Alaska, but quickness is a different thing. Even against guys with condor-esque wingspans, that quickness would let me get inside and let me control them via the breastplate on their pads. Of course that was only good against the slower big guys.