Washington Examiner: Season review-Offensive line

[Skins_Win_Again]

i figured i would just add another source to the pile suggesting that o-line needs tha most attention.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sports/blogs/redskins-confidential/Season-review-Offensive-line-81774737.html

Looking back: The Redskins failed to adequately address their depth along the line so it was just a matter of time before that error was exposed. Sure enough, by early in the season Chris Samuels and Randy Thomas -- both coming off surgeries and still battling issues -- were done. Shocker, we know. Apparently it was to the Redskins. The foolish decision to rarely draft offensive linemen came back to haunt this franchise. Unless Chad Rinehart is your idea of a building block; he's the only linemen chosen in the past five drafts. Let that one sink in. Anyway, Levi Jones showed that he could not play left tackle; Stephon Heyer continued to prove he is not a legitimate starter -- though he deserves credit for playing hurt; Mike Williams, signed as a right tackle showed he was better at guard; Edwin Williams proved he should have been a practice squader and Will Montgomery proved he was a center. Sadly, he was at guard. Casey Rabach and Derrick Dockery played every game; neither was particularly great.

What they need: Lots of help. Dockery is the only one who is almost guaranteed to return as a starter. Rabach is a free agent. My thought? Nobody else should be starting next year. With Samuels expected to retire, they'll need a left tackle. Thomas' age (34) and recent injury past suggests his time is almost up, if not over. They need to find more athletic linemen, which could mean smaller one's as well, to help with the cutback lanes by getting to the linebackers. That's something Heyer could not do. They also need to find guards who can pull.

Grade: D. We'd give them an F, but the real F goes to the front office for thinking this group had enough depth. And the effort of the players was never in question. So we're being kind. Besides, these guys are twice my size.

Where they're headed: For major changes. We'd suggest drafting a left tackle in the first round and finding a quarterback in the second. MIke Shanahan drafted a lineman in all but one of his drafts in Denver -- and selected 17 overall. He gets it; the previous Redskins front office (and the owner) did not. But if Russell Okung is not available at No. 4, I'd either trade down or go elsewhere. Okung fits what Shanahan likes (and is similar to Ryan Clady, whom Shanahan picked with Denver). The options in free agency are limited, though Tampa left tackle Donald Penn might be one, though teams typically don't let young players at this spot walk away (if they're any good). Denver guard Chris Kuper is another possibility, though his status could be determined more by the CBA. Regardless, this team will not return to any sort of glory until the line is fixed

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

I'll live with it if we take McCoy in the second. Colt McCoy below #15 or so is highway robbery imo. But if we come away with a LT and no QB this draft, it is a failure in my view.

And drafting linemen in the high first is like drafting a running back high tbh - you might get an elite player, but will he be THAT much better than a well-scouted, well developed 2nd or 3rd rounder? Whereas it is nearly impossible to find elite QBs past the 3rd round.

[Skins_Win_Again]

I'll live with it if we take McCoy in the second. Colt McCoy below #15 or so is highway robbery imo. But if we come away with a LT and no QB this draft, it is a failure in my view.

And drafting linemen in the high first is like drafting a running back high tbh - you might get an elite player, but will he be THAT much better than a well-scouted, well developed 2nd or 3rd rounder? Whereas it is nearly impossible to find elite QBs past the 3rd round.

Well it used to be that linemen could be drafted anywhere but football has changed. Tackles have become into their own class because with today's stud pass rushers, the tackle position has become more skilled then it used to. I agree guards aren't too dificult and centers aren't so hard either, they just have to be intelligent enough to work tha blocking schemes. But a top tacked is a hugh difference and we need one. However i do think drafting a quarterback later wouldnt be a bad thing

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Not really.

Jake Long, Joe Thomas and Duane Brown (1st rounders at LT) didn't even get in. The Saints and Colts are sitting with 4th and 6th rounders at LT. The Vikings and Jets had high 1st rounders but Ferguson isn't that great. In fact, I don't think there are ANY 1st rounders on either the Colts or Saints lines.

Line play is all about chemistry, scheme and development; you don't need a 6'7 315 super-athletic tackle to have a great line.

Look even at a line like the Ravens. Yes, two 1st rounders, but both late, and their LT was a supplemental pick. Flacco has been the difference for them though.

[Warhead36]

Not really.

Jake Long, Joe Thomas and Duane Brown (1st rounders at LT) didn't even get in. The Saints and Colts are sitting with 4th and 6th rounders at LT. The Vikings and Jets had high 1st rounders but Ferguson isn't that great. In fact, I don't think there are ANY 1st rounders on either the Colts or Saints lines.

Line play is all about chemistry, scheme and development; you don't need a 6'7 315 super-athletic tackle to have a great line.

Look even at a line like the Ravens. Yes, two 1st rounders, but both late, and their LT was a supplemental pick. Flacco has been the difference for them though.

QFT.

We had a top 3 overall pick for years in Samuels who individually was great, but the entire OL during his tenure as LT was mostly mediocre at best.

[PCS]

i figured i would just add another source to the pile suggesting that o-line needs tha most attention.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sports/blogs/redskins-confidential/Season-review-Offensive-line-81774737.html

Looking back: It sucked.

What they need: See above.

Grade: See # 1

Where they're headed: For major changes. Duh.

I should have been a writer.

[s0crates]

I think the writer's assessment is spot on.

[hitmandm]

A Franchise QB as soon as you can get one, yes at 4, then I dont care. The Skins need 2 dtafts.Dradt OL for 2 years, well be fine as loing as we have a franchise QB.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Right. We're going to need two offseasons to truly fix this offensive line no matter what we do (it seems to me that the take Okung at #4 people expect the line to be fixed in one offseason, which is frankly Snyder/Ceratto thinking). But our top pick now is essentially the difference between potentially finding our stud QB in 2010, or reaching for next year's version of Josh Freeman in 2011 because we didn't address the position this year.

[TheGoodBits]

I should have been a writer.

Hell yeah, sparknotes for articles. lol

[pjfootballer]

I didn't think Levi Jones played that bad. Remember, he was coming off a big injury the year before for the Bengals. I could live with him at LT for 1 year if they upgrade C, RG and RT.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

I think Rabach could be at least solid in a ZBS. His problem has always been that he's a *bad* fit for a power blocking scheme - he's smart but undersized, and racks up a lot of holding penalties because he can't match up man to man against dominant DTs and NTs.

Still, the problem with the "draft all o-line" thing is that it presupposes that you can fix the line in one season, whereas it will take two seasons minimum. And again, "franchise left tackles" do not represent the improvement over "slightly above average left tackles" that "franchise QBs" represent over "slightly above average QBs".

Hopefully we can bring in Kuper; he started on that amazing Shanahan line that gave up 12 sacks in 2008.

My dream scenario would be to draft Clausen or Bradford at #4, trade back into the 20s to draft Bulaga using players like Cooley and Rogers, draft another lineman in round 3, then take a project lineman like Wang later. Then sign Kuper and another veteran lineman, and see if the unit can come together. If not, reassess the position in the offseason with, say, a guard in the 1st round, or a center if Rabach doesn't pan out.

So my line for next season would be something like:

LT: Bulaga

LG: Dockery or a FA (or Thomas if healthy)

C: Rabach

RG: Kuper

RT: Jones

[TerpSkin]

The question is not whether it needs to be a 1st rounder or 4th rounder at LT. Of course, if you are drafting linemen year in and year out, your starting line will probably end up being a mixed bag of early rounders, late rounders, and even the occasional UDFA. But through time and constant attention you can build and maintain a strong OL. We have not been doing that. Other than Rinehart, we haven't been drafting OL period. Because of that, and because of the enormity of our problems at OL, and because we don't have 3rd and 6th round picks, we cannot afford to waste early picks on anything but OL. If we had been building and upkeeping our OL every year, we might have some late rounders starting at LT that have proven worthy. But we do not have that luxury. Let our next QB draft pick be like Joe Flacco, Matt Ryan, and Mark Sanchez (ie deemed to be good picks because they entered the league behind good lines, good running games, and good defense). Right now we cannot do that.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Again, you're trying to fix a DECADE-LONG PROBLEM in one offseason. That is the kind of thinking we thought we got rid of with Vinny. Instead of thinking towards the future, you over-commit to addressing immediate needs and then are shocked when another problem comes up in the future.

Problems at WR? Draft 3 pass catchers.

Problems at D-Line? Sign a 100 million dollar DT and draft a DE #13.

Problems at CB? Take Rogers over Merriman or Ware.

You will NOT rebuild this line this offseason. Regardless of whether you take a LT first or a QB first. But taking a LT first simply means you have to use future resources to take the QB of the future, or hope someone like Colt pans out. So the choice is: partially address the line in 2010 and potentially address QB for a decade? Or partially address the line in 2010 and reach for a mediocre prospect in 2011?

[Botched]

Not really.

Jake Long, Joe Thomas and Duane Brown (1st rounders at LT) didn't even get in. The Saints and Colts are sitting with 4th and 6th rounders at LT. The Vikings and Jets had high 1st rounders but Ferguson isn't that great. In fact, I don't think there are ANY 1st rounders on either the Colts or Saints lines.

Line play is all about chemistry, scheme and development; you don't need a 6'7 315 super-athletic tackle to have a great line.

Look even at a line like the Ravens. Yes, two 1st rounders, but both late, and their LT was a supplemental pick. Flacco has been the difference for them though.

Good examples.

Also don't forget that we had three 1st round tackles start on our offensive line in 2009. I just think that's funny considering how bad our line was for most of the year.

[pjfootballer]

Again, you're trying to fix a DECADE-LONG PROBLEM in one offseason. That is the kind of thinking we thought we got rid of with Vinny. Instead of thinking towards the future, you over-commit to addressing immediate needs and then are shocked when another problem comes up in the future.

Problems at WR? Draft 3 pass catchers.

Problems at D-Line? Sign a 100 million dollar DT and draft a DE #13.

Problems at CB? Take Rogers over Merriman or Ware.

You will NOT rebuild this line this offseason. Regardless of whether you take a LT first or a QB first. But taking a LT first simply means you have to use future resources to take the QB of the future, or hope someone like Colt pans out. So the choice is: partially address the line in 2010 and potentially address QB for a decade? Or partially address the line in 2010 and reach for a mediocre prospect in 2011?

I agree with this thinking and I'm sure Shanny knows he won't fix the whole problem in one offseason. I still think he takes Bradford at #4 and addresses the O-line in the 2nd and 4th rounds while taking a look at free agency .

[Skins93077]

my dream situation would be to drop down out of the top 4 pick up another 1st rounder. draft bradford somehow by trading with seattle or san fran for there 2 1st's. and address the ot with bulaga, or davis whomever is there in the mid round of the 1st and then figure out a way without trading next years 1st and get dan williams dt or well nt really from tenn.

so we would address all our needs and give up rest. free agents like campbell, rodgers or whomever is excess to upgrade our picks. and in return get more draft picks to address out need possitions.

so we would get

bradford qb

bulaga, davis ot

dan williams nt

it could happen if seattle falls in love or san fran falls in love with jimmy clauson and wants to give up there draft picks for that. with those 3 wow! then add a later ot like the kid from indiana that shined in the shrine and rb like blount and were headed straight to contention in 2 years!

[scruffylookin]

I know people love to point the finger soley at Vinny and say that the Oline neglect started in 2008 but I'm happy to see that this article places blame further back and that we just reaped in 2008/09 what was sown for years before.

To me the perfect example of how bad this Oline was put together and how little long term thought was given to it was the 2007 offseason.

Okay so Derrick Dockery receives a huge contract offer from Buffalo and we choose (wisely) not to match it and let him walk. We knew he was going to be a free agent so what exactly did we have in place to replace him?

Todd Wade.

An over 30 right tackle who we decided to try and move to a new position at Left guard. Okay. Maybe he was a stopgap until our newly drafted guard could come in and take over. Except no olineman was drafted in 2007. Instead we draft a safety, 2 linebackers, a qb and a tight end.

Then the idiocy of this team comes to fruition in training camp (again) when they see just how bad Todd Wade is at guard, the front office decide to trade several draft picks to the Jets for over 30 guard Pete Kendall.

This left us with an Oline going into 2008 of over 30 Samuels, over 30 Kendall, over 30 Thomas and over 30 Jansen and zero depth behind them and this is the Oline we "targeted" as having suit up for us just as our first round QB Jason Campbell should be ready to blossom (not wanting to turn this into a JC argument just saying if Jason were to be the QB I think everyone hoped he'd be it would likely start happening by his 3rd year of starting).

Horrible Horrible Horrible management of this Oline for the last 7 or so years.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I should have been a writer.

Then next time you turn into the resident bard of the boards PCS; could you please do it above the OP, to save me the trouble of any unnecessary reading. .

Hail.

[Darth Tater]

Because you are not going to fix the problem in one off season is exactly why you need to use the draft to find offensive linemen NOW and wait to find the future QB in the future. If you do not have the right environment for the QB, he WILL be a bust. Even Peyton Manning in his rookie year would have failed had he not had a HOF backfield, a coaching staff that believed in him, a solid (in this case mostly due to experience) offensive line and a couple of pretty good receivers. Also, he had a LT taken the year before. Sanchez may be identified as the face of the Jets but the line had two guys taken in the first to prepare for a rookie. The Saints line includes a LT taken in the first who prepared the team for Brees (although Brees already had been developed at that point). Even the Vikings did not add the franchise QB UNTIL they had everything prepared for him although once a franchise QB is developed, you only need a solid offensive line .

You MUST have the environment prepared for the arrival of a top QB or he WILL bust. On the offensive line, there are two ways this will work: either have a pretty good one in place (in this case, maybe you can get away with mid-rounders if its been together several years) or put a top-shelf one together quickly (here your talking high-round selections while in the past you might also have been able to find them in FA). We must take the second one so they'll have a year or two in BEFORE we take the QB of the future so he actually has chance to develop into the QB he has the potential to be. OK, there is a third way, we can rely on luck that we find another Grimm in the second or fourth, a Jacoby as a UDFA and one of the guys we have who came from the NFL trash heap turns out. Unless you think the offensive line is potentially good, taking a QB with our number one IS a wasted pick.

[NoCalMike]

The thing about an Offensive line though is it takes more than just talent. You can have a bunch of talent but usually the line takes a couple season to really become a good UNIT. That is the thing. We've had solid play from some members from time to time, but as a UNIT they have been pretty dissapointing.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Unless you think the offensive line is potentially good, taking a QB with our number one IS a wasted pick.

Name some QBs that have busted SOLELY due to their supporting casts, and not due to them being fundamentally bad quarterbacks ( Russell, Carr, Harrington were fundamentally bad QBs.)

Peyton and Aikman got killed their first years because their supporting cast wasn't ready. Didn't affect them I think.

[TerpSkin]

Name some QBs that have busted SOLELY due to their supporting casts, and not due to them being fundamentally bad quarterbacks ( Russell, Carr, Harrington were fundamentally bad QBs.)

This is fundamentally flawed thinking. You believe that because a QB never pans out that this proves he wouldn't have panned out entering into a different situation. This is simply wrong. I am not going to attempt to name a QB that would have succeeded in a different situation, because it is completely hypothetical and we could debate a specific example back and forth ad nauseam. But at the same time, it would be a pretty radical statement to say that it is not possible that putting a rookie QB directly into a bad situation does not risk the possibility of permanently stigmatizing him in the eyes of NFL talent evaluators, permanently screw up a QB's growth curve due to becoming gun-shy from too many hits or receiving bad coaching, and/or permanently reduce the QBs physical tools through the vicious beatings a rookie QB might take behind a porous OL. In fact I would argue at least one of these things happening when drafting a QB high in the draft before getting the OL in shape is close to a certainty.

Also, as Darth Tater mentioned, it is because we cannot fix OL in one offseason that we must get started now. Get a couple OL high in the draft now, so that you can approach future offseasons with the mindset of simple upkeep for the OL. Take the Ravens as an example. They had OL problems for years and really struggled with the QB position whether it be draft (Boller) or FA (Grbac and Wright). But then they spent about two offseasons really focusing on OL in the draft, and next thing you know they draft Flacco behind an established OL suddenly you have the first (I think that is right) NFL rookie QB to win 2 playoff games. Now Sanchez comes in behind a good Jets OL and we get the second example of that.

[TerpSkin]

Moreover, Peyton and Aikman both were terrible until the ship was righted around them... and their teams made sure to right the ships quickly and were patient throughout the righting process. We have not even tried to right the ship (ie fix the OL) around Jason yet, and therefore cannot claim to even have begun being patient through the righting process.

Furthermore, if support for Skins in their current situation drafting a QB in the 1st round is to come from Aikman and Peyton, then you have essentially proven that this is a bad strategy. The number of QBs that have reached their level of success in the NFL is so incredibly small that it renders the risk of such a strategy too great.

Here is a fact, the Redskins have tried to fix the offense with a 1st round QB a lot more often then they have tried to fix the OL through the draft in the past ten or so years, and it hasn't gotten us very far. You can try to blame it on bad talent evaluation all you want, but it is simply the likely outcome of that team-building strategy. You can win championships with mediocre QBs and great OLs... you cannot with great QBs and terrible OLs. Yes, it would be awesome to have a great QB and great OL, but OL is clearly more important and should therefore be the priority regardless of what you think of Jason Campbell.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Here is a fact, the Redskins have tried to fix the offense with a 1st round QB a lot more often then they have tried to fix the OL through the draft in the past ten or so years, and it hasn't gotten us very far. You can try to blame it on bad talent evaluation all you want, but it is simply the likely outcome of that team-building strategy. You can win championships with mediocre QBs and great OLs... you cannot with great QBs and terrible OLs. Yes, it would be awesome to have a great QB and great OL, but OL is clearly more important and should therefore be the priority regardless of what you think of Jason Campbell.

Completely and utterly false in the 21st century NFL

You need great QB play, period