Random thoughts about drafting OL in early rounds.

[Uhsplit]

We all know our favorite team has needs along the OL. Some could consider the situation desperate.

Most of us have heard over the last couple of years that the college game is not turning out NFL ready offensive linemen at any position along the OL. Yesterday, for the 1st time I heard on the radio that college coaches are now saying the kids coming out of HS are not as prepared or equipped as they used to be.

For discussion sake, let's assume this is accurate and that it will take more time to train these athlete's to their full potential once they make it to the professional level.

With that in mind, I tend to feel that we would not get good value for our pick at #1 or maybe even #2 by reaching for a player that has earned his draft status but will not be ready to be thrown into the fire. It is also my belief that regardless of who the OL coach is, we may not see much improvement from the high picks for possibly 3-4 years.
My thought is that we will get more bang for our buck by drafting a position of other than OL for the 1st round or 2. Do any of you hard core fans feel the same way or do you disagree on this?

FWIW, according to today's Everett Herald at yesterday's meetings JS said the plan right now is for Gilliam to slide to the LT position and compete with Sowell at LT and having Webb battle for the starting RT position. If those components can become almost average in performance and if Glowinski is for real, we may not be in such terrible position as many think. If that becomes the situation, how great would it be to draft for depth along the OL and let them ripen a bit before being forced into a situation they may not be prepared for.

 

[DHoey]

My thoughts:

For a winning football team the draft should always be about value. And not just value in general, but value for the team itself. Pete Carroll seems to not put a high value on the passing game/pass blocking. If they can get away with strong run blockers up front, they will IMO. Now, if I think that if there is a O-lineman that can carry more value to PC/JS than a defensive player in the 1st round, then jump on it. But I think that it would take a lot to overcome a defensive value vs. o-lineman.

I don't know if that makes sense with me writing it, but I think defensive value>offensive lineman value if all are equal. It wouldn't suprise me if they don't take a OL first and instead make a defensive pick.

 

[cdumler7]

Uhsplit I have been saying this for the past couple of years. You can't draft an OL player in the draft and expect day 1 results. Some of the interior guys can step in day 1 and find success like Martin for the Cowboys, Richburg for the Giants, and so on but at the Tackle position we have only seen a couple of guys in the last 5 years come in and do well from the get go. Heck with many we have seen it take even more than just one season for them to be developed. The Chief's #1 overall pick in Fisher is a great example He is entering his 4th year and last year was the first he showed any kind of promise. It seems to take almost the entire 1st contract to see an OL player actually pay off.

I actually listened to a guy that has gotten multiple phone calls from teams to come and coach their OL and he called his old OL coach from when he played and his coach told him to not take the job. He said that the way the new CBA set things up and the way the college game is being played it is just about impossible to actually coach these guys up into quality players. Or at least do it fast enough that the FO doesn't get upset.

 

[SonnyCID]

We all know our favorite team has needs along the OL. Some could consider the situation desperate.

Most of us have heard over the last couple of years that the college game is not turning out NFL ready offensive linemen at any position along the OL. Yesterday, for the 1st time I heard on the radio that college coaches are now saying the kids coming out of HS are not as prepared or equipped as they used to be.

For discussion sake, let's assume this is accurate and that it will take more time to train these athlete's to their full potential once they make it to the professional level.

With that in mind, I tend to feel that we would not get good value for our pick at #1 or maybe even #2 by reaching for a player that has earned his draft status but will not be ready to be thrown into the fire. It is also my belief that regardless of who the OL coach is, we may not see much improvement from the high picks for possibly 3-4 years.
My thought is that we will get more bang for our buck by drafting a position of other than OL for the 1st round or 2. Do any of you hard core fans feel the same way or do you disagree on this?

FWIW, according to today's Everett Herald at yesterday's meetings JS said the plan right now is for Gilliam to slide to the LT position and compete with Sowell at LT and having Webb battle for the starting RT position. If those components can become almost average in performance and if Glowinski is for real, we may not be in such terrible position as many think. If that becomes the situation, how great would it be to draft for depth along the OL and let them ripen a bit before being forced into a situation they may not be prepared for.

I don't buy the argument that kids are coming our of HS less equipped to be pass blockers than years before. HS kids almost always have lacked the size and technique coming out. Partly because of strength and conditioning, and partly because of the nature of HS run, run, run offenses. Now, the college game to NFL transition is different. There is an ovious lack of development in college in preparation for the NFL. Pass blockers in college just stand up and push or run outside for a screen pass. They don't move laterally while engaged or while backing up.

So, pretty much every damn college linemen is a project nowadays. And this year looks like we will have some more projects to start.

I also think that as pass rushers across the line increase in value both in college and in the NFL, these big, terrific athletes are going to want to play defense, rather than pack on 50-75 extra lbs, be lower profile, and make less money.

And yeah, we have a bad oline. But we are not as alone in that as some make it sound. This is a league wide problem, its not limited to Seattle.

 

[MrS]

Its gonna be another very rocky start in 2016. Hoping a bunch of scrubs can claw their way to average sounds like a losing formula to me

 

[dude82]

I don't buy the argument that kids are coming our of HS less equipped to be pass blockers than years before. HS kids almost always have lacked the size and technique coming out. Partly because of strength and conditioning, and partly because of the nature of HS run, run, run offenses. Now, the college game to NFL transition is different. There is an ovious lack of development in college in preparation for the NFL. Pass blockers in college just stand up and push or run outside for a screen pass. They don't move laterally while engaged or while backing up.

So, pretty much every damn college linemen is a project nowadays. And this year looks like we will have some more projects to start.

I also think that as pass rushers across the line increase in value both in college and in the NFL, these big, terrific athletes are going to want to play defense, rather than pack on 50-75 extra lbs, be lower profile, and make less money.

And yeah, we have a bad oline. But we are not as alone in that as some make it sound. This is a league wide problem, its not limited to Seattle.

This specific issue might be a league wide issue right now, but the Hawks have been having problems with their offensive line for nearly a decade and it's only been in the last 2-3 years that the idea of college linemen not being as NFL ready as they used to be has gotten any attention. It's consistently been the biggest weakness for the Seahawks going back to the pre-Carroll, pre-Cable days of 2006-2007 when arguably the best offensive line in team history started to disintegrate. Since then, whether the coaches have simply overestimated the abilities of the guys they've brought in or their plans have been derailed by injuries, they just haven't been able to build an offensive line that has been better than mediocre.

Even its alleged strength, run blocking, has been questioned by people who look at how often Lynch had to fight just to get back to the line of scrimmage or a few yards beyond it and wonder whether the team would still have the reputation of being a good running team if they didn't have someone as strong or as determined as Lynch in the backfield. That idea should be thoroughly tested now that Lynch has retired and Rawls is taking over, but the fact that anyone would wonder whether the perceived strength of the offensive line should really have been attributed to the offensive line or to Lynch all this time is a bit concerning going forward. Now, Rawls looked great behind the offensive line in his limited action, so maybe the offensive line had more to do with the success of the running game than they get credit for, but it'll be interesting to watch that going forward. Then again, maybe this hard reset they're having to go through on the line will eliminate some of that doubt. We'll see.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

You can't draft an OL player in the draft and expect day 1 results. Some of the interior guys can step in day 1 and find success

If takes longer best start ASAP don't you think? If their are some OL that can step in day one and find success, don't miss the boat on them.....right? Don't get cute and hope to pick them later only to find they've been picked by another team.

it is just about impossible to actually coach these guys up into quality players. Or at least do it fast enough that the FO doesn't get upset.

Sounds a lot like what they say about QBs, yet most drafts produces a few it seems to me. Last year Winston and Mariota, year before Bortles, Carr, and Bridgewater.


When your drafting near the bottom of the draft and you want value go with positions that deep. Most positions will be drafted in the first round, you find WRs, QBs,DL, LB CBs Safties, OL all getting picks in the top 20. So a position that only has a couple decent guys worth picking in the first will be depleted at say 26th pick, but a position that has a half dozen worthy of a first will still have some quality available.

 

[SonnyCID]

This specific issue might be a league wide issue right now, but the Hawks have been having problems with their offensive line for nearly a decade and it's only been in the last 2-3 years that the idea of college linemen not being as NFL ready as they used to be has gotten any attention. It's consistently been the biggest weakness for the Seahawks going back to the pre-Carroll, pre-Cable days of 2006-2007 when arguably the best offensive line in team history started to disintegrate. Since then, whether the coaches have simply overestimated the abilities of the guys they've brought in or their plans have been derailed by injuries, they just haven't been able to build an offensive line that has been better than mediocre.

Even its alleged strength, run blocking, has been questioned by people who look at how often Lynch had to fight just to get back to the line of scrimmage or a few yards beyond it and wonder whether the team would still have the reputation of being a good running team if they didn't have someone as strong or as determined as Lynch in the backfield. That idea should be thoroughly tested now that Lynch has retired and Rawls is taking over, but the fact that anyone would wonder whether the perceived strength of the offensive line should really have been attributed to the offensive line or to Lynch all this time is a bit concerning going forward. Now, Rawls looked great behind the offensive line in his limited action, so maybe the offensive line had more to do with the success of the running game than they get credit for, but it'll be interesting to watch that going forward. Then again, maybe this hard reset they're having to go through on the line will eliminate some of that doubt. We'll see.

Oh, I agree Dude. It's been a problem for a long time. And right now, the Hawks are one of the worst in the league. But even the level of the top 5 lines today is quite a bit lower than the top 5 lines of a decade ago. I was just on the Gen board this morning following the "best rb combo" thread and like many threads it's kind of turned in to fans of every team complaining about their lines.

 

[cdumler7]

If takes longer best start ASAP don't you think? If their are some OL that can step in day one and find success, don't miss the boat on them.....right? Don't get cute and hope to pick them later only to find they've been picked by another team.



Sounds a lot like what they say about QBs, yet most drafts produces a few it seems to me. Last year Winston and Mariota, year before Bortles, Carr, and Bridgewater.


When your drafting near the bottom of the draft and you want value go with positions that deep. Most positions will be drafted in the first round, you find WRs, QBs,DL, LB CBs Safties, OL all getting picks in the top 20. So a position that only has a couple decent guys worth picking in the first will be depleted at say 26th pick, but a position that has a half dozen worthy of a first will still have some quality available.

Not saying don't draft OL. I'm saying understand that as a fan base you might have to exercise patience more than you want. It is not a position that just because they are a 1st round pick that they will come in ready to start. Now you could say that about most positions but I do think OL has shown to be a more difficult position early on. I'm just more in the just because you use premium picks on the position doesn't mean that weakness of an OL is now fixed. Maybe you get lucky and find that player and again don't not use a 1st round pick just because the player might not be ready. If you like their talent then draft them.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

For discussion sake, let's assume this is accurate and that it will take more time to train these athlete's to their full potential once they make it to the professional level.
If takes longer, best start ASAP, also try to find the few that can develop faster. There"s usually a couple that do, so don't try to get cute and miss out on them.

With that in mind, I tend to feel that we would not get good value for our pick at #1 or maybe even #2 by reaching for a player that has earned his draft status but will not be ready to be thrown into the fire.

I would suggest that when you pick near the bottom of the draft, go with the position with depth for this draft, rather then reaching for a sexier position that only had a couple players worth a first and they"re gone.

My thought is that we will get more bang for our buck by drafting a position of other than OL for the 1st round or 2. Do any of you hard core fans feel the same way or do you disagree on this?

Yes I disagree, see the above.

FWIW, according to today's Everett Herald at yesterday's meetings JS said the plan right now is for Gilliam to slide to the LT position and compete with Sowell at LT and having Webb battle for the starting RT position.

I heard the interview and my take was JS meant if the season started right now, before the draft.

If those components can become almost average in performance and if Glowinski is for real, we may not be in such terrible position as many think.

Hoping Webb and Sowell can become almost average is a reach IMO. Certainly their track record says otherwise.

great would it be to draft for depth along the OL and let them ripen a bit before being forced into a situation they may not be prepared for.

Why would you want to settle for depth, when you need starting material?

 

[SonnyCID]

I remember a quote from Holmgren years ago, don't remember exactly what he said, but it was along the lines of, not prioritizing solely based on what your weakness is, but also to sustain or improve on what you're already good at. I think of that whenever the draft rolls around. In PCJS we trust.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Not saying don't draft OL. I'm saying understand that as a fan base you might have to exercise patience more than you want. It is not a position that just because they are a 1st round pick that they will come in ready to start. Now you could say that about most positions but I do think OL has shown to be a more difficult position early on. I'm just more in the just because you use premium picks on the position doesn't mean that weakness of an OL is now fixed. Maybe you get lucky and find that player and again don't not use a 1st round pick just because the player might not be ready. If you like their talent then draft them.

Best way to learn some thing is to actually do it, then do it again and again. I'm not a believer in player learning by sitting usually, though in some cases you just have to sit them, because they are so raw in every way. All though I agree OL are not as ready coming out of college, you still need them and playing snaps is the best way they can pick up the game along with tape and coaching. Much rather go with a talented rookie, who is only lacking in getting coach up and well improve with snaps over a vet proven to be lacking in the NFL and only has experience failing in the NFL. Don't want that vet getting in the way of improving a rookie by getting the snaps the rookie needs.

 

[MKHawk]

They have to bring in more bodies to compete for spots along the OL. Maybe all the vets win those position battles, but they have to be pushed. Otherwise we're looking at a stretch like last year's first 8 games again.

 

[cdumler7]

Best way to learn some thing is to actually do it, then do it again and again. I'm not a believer in player learning by sitting usually, though in some cases you just have to sit them, because they are so raw in every way. All though I agree OL are not as ready coming out of college, you still need them and playing snaps is the best way they can pick up the game along with tape and coaching. Much rather go with a talented rookie, who is only lacking in getting coach up and well improve with snaps over a vet proven to be lacking in the NFL and only has experience failing in the NFL. Don't want that vet getting in the way of improving a rookie by getting the snaps the rookie needs.

This is where I might disagree some. I do agree that getting actual game time snaps can be a huge help. At the same time I do wonder if maybe getting that guy who is that 4th year veteran in the league who has shown some promise but hasn't been a consistent player that they might actually be the better option. I look at so many of these OL players now in their 3rd or 4th year still struggling with pretty basic concepts on the OL and at least to me just shows how long it really does take to train some of these guys up.

Again we have seen others who stepped in and did fine. When the new CBA happened that was the year the Cowboys took Tyron Smith and he has been good for a few years now. So it definitely can happen where a rookie can do well and can learn well quickly. But then again I look at the 2012 draft and the argument can be made that they are still waiting for the 1st round picks on the OL to show they belong. The 2013 NFL draft has 2 of the 3 OT's taken in the top-5 actually having to fight to see if they can even be a starter this year or not. It is a position with so few players actually being taught any kind of technique at the high school or college level that an NFL coach has to build them from the bottom up and with so few contact practices it makes it very difficult to give them the proper time needed.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

This is where I might disagree some. I do agree that getting actual game time snaps can be a huge help. At the same time I do wonder if maybe getting that guy who is that 4th year veteran in the league who has shown some promise but hasn't been a consistent player that they might actually be the better option. I look at so many of these OL players now in their 3rd or 4th year still struggling with pretty basic concepts on the OL and at least to me just shows how long it really does take to train some of these guys up.

Again we have seen others who stepped in and did fine. When the new CBA happened that was the year the Cowboys took Tyron Smith and he has been good for a few years now. So it definitely can happen where a rookie can do well and can learn well quickly. But then again I look at the 2012 draft and the argument can be made that they are still waiting for the 1st round picks on the OL to show they belong. The 2013 NFL draft has 2 of the 3 OT's taken in the top-5 actually having to fight to see if they can even be a starter this year or not. It is a position with so few players actually being taught any kind of technique at the high school or college level that an NFL coach has to build them from the bottom up and with so few contact practices it makes it very difficult to give them the proper time needed.

So your suggesting just cherry picking OL in the FA period is the way to go? I say this because obviously players are going to be thru their rookie contract after 4 years. How do you know they are any good if they haven't played much? I say give them snaps ever chance you have, they need them.

I'll use Garry Gilliam as a example, he was terrible to start the season last year. The Bengals games had me so down on him, he was beat like a drum all game long. With enough snaps ( and enough talent) he was looking pretty good by mid season or shortly after mid season.

 

[cdumler7]

So your suggesting just cherry picking OL in the FA period is the way to go? I say this because obviously players are going to be thru their rookie contract after 4 years. How do you know they are any good if they haven't played much? I say give them snaps ever chance you have, they need them.

I'll use Garry Gilliam as a example, he was terrible to start the season last year. The Bengals games had me so down on him, he was beat like a drum all game long. With enough snaps ( and enough talent) he was looking pretty good by mid season or shortly after mid season.

Again I'm not saying don't draft rookie OL players. I'm saying understand especially at the OT position there is a greater chance the player takes at least 2 seasons before you start seeing any kind of substance from your investment. Obviously you saw with last year having to take the good with the bad. It does lead to some frustrating times as fans watching as rookies get beaten left and right. Heck the Broncos last year had one of the youngest OL's in football in the past 10 years. Manning and Osweiler both gotten beaten up throughout the year. Yes it will help to pay off this year as now we have some of those guys entering the 2nd and 3rd seasons in the league and they showed promise towards the end of the year but man was it rough to watch them.

I guess I just see a tough year ahead for the OL, the running game, and for Wilson especially if a couple of rookies are asked to start.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Again I'm not saying don't draft rookie OL players. I'm saying understand especially at the OT position there is a greater chance the player takes at least 2 seasons before you start seeing any kind of substance from your investment. Obviously you saw with last year having to take the good with the bad. It does lead to some frustrating times as fans watching as rookies get beaten left and right. Heck the Broncos last year had one of the youngest OL's in football in the past 10 years. Manning and Osweiler both gotten beaten up throughout the year. Yes it will help to pay off this year as now we have some of those guys entering the 2nd and 3rd seasons in the league and they showed promise towards the end of the year but man was it rough to watch them.

I guess I just see a tough year ahead for the OL, the running game, and for Wilson especially if a couple of rookies are asked to start.

So what your saying is......hope for the best, but be prepared for the worse? I think that's exactly how the FO is approaching rebuilding the OL . I expect them to pick up a tackle and either a guard or center, but just in case they signed a couple of vets to fill in if things go south.

 

[cdumler7]

So what your saying is......hope for the best, but be prepared for the worse? I think that's exactly how the FO is approaching rebuilding the OL . I expect them to pick up a tackle and either a guard or center, but just in case they signed a couple of vets to fill in if things go south.

I'm saying the stats are showing that OL throughout the draft is having one of the highest bust rates of any position and the likelihood of finding a guy that comes in day 1 and does well especially when picking towards the bottom of the round is highly unlikely. Not impossible but unlikely. Again doesn't mean you don't draft the position if you like a player just understand that 90-95% chance the players does not do well for the first 2 years you have them.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I'm saying the stats are showing that OL throughout the draft is having one of the highest bust rates of any position and the likelihood of finding a guy that comes in day 1 and does well especially when picking towards the bottom of the round is highly unlikely. Not impossible but unlikely. Again doesn't mean you don't draft the position if you like a player just understand that 90-95% chance the players does not do well for the first 2 years you have them.

It's like drafting QBs, high bust rate, but you got to find one , you need your OL to be able to block to make your offense work. Both Broncos and Seahawks will invest in the OL. Biggest difference is the Seahawks are more likely to do it thru the draft.

 

[cdumler7]

It's like drafting QBs, high bust rate, but you got to find one , you need your OL to be able to block to make your offense work. Both Broncos and Seahawks will invest in the OL. Biggest difference is the Seahawks are more likely to do it thru the draft.

Broncos have their starting 5 set from what I can tell. Now it will be about drafting for the future and for depth on the OL for the Broncos at least for this year. Have to see what they do with Okung after this year.

You are right you have to find one and you have to take some chances. Sometimes it works out well and other times it blows up in your face. Worth the risk if you like a player. Right now I am having a hard time seeing a back up plan for the Seahawks if the rookie doesn't pan out.