What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Offensive Lines - 2007 Season (1 Viewer)

bocksheesh

Footballguy
This article is a Members Only article, and is one of the best of the preseason.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2007/07smith_olines.php

I won't post specifics, but there are several items worth discussing based on the article. Curious what others think.

1. The Giants OLine looks woeful: 24th Overall, 27th Run Blocking, 24th Pass Blocking. This could have a real impact on Brandon Jacobs, even if people like his upside.

2. The Chiefs OLine looks to be in troube: 30th Overall, 26th Run Blocking, 30th Pass Blocking. This could be the real reason for LJ's demise.

3. The Dallas OLine is going to be a run blocking machine: 5th Run Blocking. Might this factor into a bigger year than expected for Julius Jones and/or MB3?

4. The Chicago OLine is just devastating. 2nd Overall, 4th Run Blocking, 2nd Pass Blocking. How Cedric Benson, barring injury, does not end up in the Top 10 behind that line and with all those carries is beyond me.

Those are some of the things I noticed. There are countless other interesting nuggets in the article. For those members who've read, I hope we can get a good thread going about OLines. For those who aren't members, if there is an article that would justify the small fee, this is one of them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bocksheesh said:
1. The Giants OLine looks woeful: 24th Overall, 27th Run Blocking, 24th Pass Blocking. This could have a real impact on Brandon Jacobs, even if people like his upside.
I don't see a reason to be so down on the Giants O line. They couldn't be that bad in run blocking. They had a ton of yards last season.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Giants offensive line was in great shape over the past few seasons but I don't like the re-shuffle that went on this season. It is one thing to let a player like Luke Petitgout sign elsewhere and I know that folks are torn on how effective he has been over the years (I for one believe he has been a stabilizing presence along the OL and a valuable run blocker). It is another to let a starting left tackle go without a clear vision in mind.

I believe the Giants truly wanted Guy Whimper to step up but he has been a disaster so far this offseason and into training camp. That will force the Giants to move their excellent left guard into left tackle where he isn't as well suited. Don't get me wrong as I believe Diehl will be serviceable at tackle but he was a force at guard and it is a shame to move him over. It appears that Rich Seubert will have to slot into guard and he simply isn't in the same ballpark as Diehl.

The right side of the offensive line is in good shape but the left side appears to be of concern. I have been on the high side in regards for the Giants OL for years but a downswing will happen in 2007.

 
Why is Lepsis so low and the Broncos overall? Holland I can understand your ranking, but Pears started for Denver last year in place of Lepsis and did a pretty dang good job against some premiere DE's.

I'm also somewhat suprised with your ranking of Hamilton who is widely regarded as one of the best technicians in the game...plus they asked him to put on some more weight.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is Lepsis so low and the Broncos overall? Holland I can understand your ranking, but Pears started for Denver last year in place of Lepsis and did a pretty dang good job against some premiere DE's.I'm also somewhat suprised with your ranking of Hamilton who is widely regarded as one of the best technicians in the game...plus they asked him to put on some more weight.
I have Lepsis 15th... It's a little risky ranking a 33-year old coming off of an injury much higher than that unless he was elite to start with. I don't believe you can put Lepsis into that category and I have a tough time moving him ahead of Tait, Levi Jones and Matt Light.I have Hamilton 10th and I believe that is a perfect spot for him... Here are my top ten left guards. Who should be dropped so he can move up?1 Steve Hutchinson2 Eric Steinbach3 Ruben Brown4 Alan Faneca5 Larry Allen6 Brian Waters7 Mike Wahle8 Kris Dielman9 Logan Mankins10 Ben HamiltonI slotted Pears in 23rd at right tackle due to his relative inexperience. I don't think he is an elite player but we'll know more for sure after this season. I agree he held him own in there last season but did give up 6 sacks in 10 starts. I can see him moving considerable up the list but it's too early in my opinion to send him skyrocketing up the list.Good comments. Grading OLs is a brutal assignment but I have been collecting data and info on these players and OLs for years and feel pretty confident in these rankings.
 
The Giants offensive line was in great shape over the past few seasons but I don't like the re-shuffle that went on this season. It is one thing to let a player like Luke Petitgout sign elsewhere and I know that folks are torn on how effective he has been over the years (I for one believe he has been a stabilizing presence along the OL and a valuable run blocker). It is another to let a starting left tackle go without a clear vision in mind.I believe the Giants truly wanted Guy Whimper to step up but he has been a disaster so far this offseason and into training camp. That will force the Giants to move their excellent left guard into left tackle where he isn't as well suited. Don't get me wrong as I believe Diehl will be serviceable at tackle but he was a force at guard and it is a shame to move him over. It appears that Rich Seubert will have to slot into guard and he simply isn't in the same ballpark as Diehl.The right side of the offensive line is in good shape but the left side appears to be of concern. I have been on the high side in regards for the Giants OL for years but a downswing will happen in 2007.
Back problems and all, Pettigout brought some stability to the offensive line. He wasn't a Pro-Browler, but he was at least average. So the Giants decide that instead of getting an above average back-up to give him a breather, It would be easier to blow up the LT position, blow up the LG position and try and fill in from there. Going into last year, one of the things that made the Giants o-line good was Cohesion. They do not have that now. The 3 most important positions on any team are QB, LT and LCB in that order and the Giants just blew up LT. I totally agree with Chris Smith on this one.
 
The Giants offensive line was in great shape over the past few seasons but I don't like the re-shuffle that went on this season. It is one thing to let a player like Luke Petitgout sign elsewhere and I know that folks are torn on how effective he has been over the years (I for one believe he has been a stabilizing presence along the OL and a valuable run blocker). It is another to let a starting left tackle go without a clear vision in mind.I believe the Giants truly wanted Guy Whimper to step up but he has been a disaster so far this offseason and into training camp. That will force the Giants to move their excellent left guard into left tackle where he isn't as well suited. Don't get me wrong as I believe Diehl will be serviceable at tackle but he was a force at guard and it is a shame to move him over. It appears that Rich Seubert will have to slot into guard and he simply isn't in the same ballpark as Diehl.The right side of the offensive line is in good shape but the left side appears to be of concern. I have been on the high side in regards for the Giants OL for years but a downswing will happen in 2007.
Back problems and all, Pettigout brought some stability to the offensive line. He wasn't a Pro-Browler, but he was at least average. So the Giants decide that instead of getting an above average back-up to give him a breather, It would be easier to blow up the LT position, blow up the LG position and try and fill in from there. Going into last year, one of the things that made the Giants o-line good was Cohesion. They do not have that now. The 3 most important positions on any team are QB, LT and LCB in that order and the Giants just blew up LT. I totally agree with Chris Smith on this one.
:thumbdown: ;)
 
bocksheesh said:
This article is a Members Only article, and is one of the best of the preseason.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2007/07smith_olines.php

I won't post specifics, but there are several items worth discussing based on the article. Curious what others think.

1. The Giants OLine looks woeful: 24th Overall, 27th Run Blocking, 24th Pass Blocking. This could have a real impact on Brandon Jacobs, even if people like his upside.

2. The Chiefs OLine looks to be in troube: 30th Overall, 26th Run Blocking, 30th Pass Blocking. This could be the real reason for LJ's demise.

3. The Dallas OLine is going to be a run blocking machine: 5th Run Blocking. Might this factor into a bigger year than expected for Julius Jones and/or MB3?

4. The Chicago OLine is just devastating. 2nd Overall, 4th Run Blocking, 2nd Pass Blocking. How Cedric Benson, barring injury, does not end up in the Top 10 behind that line and with all those carries is beyond me.

Those are some of the things I noticed. There are countless other interesting nuggets in the article. For those members who've read, I hope we can get a good thread going about OLines. For those who aren't members, if there is an article that would justify the small fee, this is one of them.
While I'm at it I gotta comment on the Chef's offensive line. I had them rated at 24 before McIntosh got hurt. McIntosh was the cast off of a poor Miami line for a reason, and now the starter is the back-up to the scrub. LT is the most important position on the line. Will this effect LJ enough to cause a huge drop? I'm not sure. But I'm pretty sure that KC will go through 2 QB's and maybe 3 this year. Great Googely Moogely!I agree with Chris on the Chicago line too, but I think I take their injury risk into account a little more than him. If healthy I think they are the best o-line in football, but the under/over for all 5 starters being healthy is week 3. They only have 1 guy starting under the age of 30. Their depth is good, but any replacement of Tait, Brown or Kreutz is gonna be a big downgrade.

 
Why is Lepsis so low and the Broncos overall? Holland I can understand your ranking, but Pears started for Denver last year in place of Lepsis and did a pretty dang good job against some premiere DE's.I'm also somewhat suprised with your ranking of Hamilton who is widely regarded as one of the best technicians in the game...plus they asked him to put on some more weight.
I have Lepsis 15th... It's a little risky ranking a 33-year old coming off of an injury much higher than that unless he was elite to start with. I don't believe you can put Lepsis into that category and I have a tough time moving him ahead of Tait, Levi Jones and Matt Light.I have Hamilton 10th and I believe that is a perfect spot for him... Here are my top ten left guards. Who should be dropped so he can move up?1 Steve Hutchinson2 Eric Steinbach3 Ruben Brown4 Alan Faneca5 Larry Allen6Brian Waters7 Mike Wahle8 Kris Dielman9 Logan Mankins10 Ben HamiltonI slotted Pears in 23rd at right tackle due to his relative inexperience. I don't think he is an elite player but we'll know more for sure after this season. I agree he held him own in there last season but did give up 6 sacks in 10 starts. I can see him moving considerable up the list but it's too early in my opinion to send him skyrocketing up the list.Good comments. Grading OLs is a brutal assignment but I have been collecting data and info on these players and OLs for years and feel pretty confident in these rankings.
I understand your concern with Lepsis. I think Hamilton is better then Mankins personally, but 9/10 makes little difference.Regarding Pears. Well for one I think George Foster is an absolute turd. If Meadows was healthy last year he would have replaced Foster he played that poorly and Pears outplayed Foster/Meadows. If Foster is ranked 15th, then by that alone Pears should be ranked higher then him. Foster can't block speed rushers, he gets bull rushed by considerably smaller DE's, and he can't push anybody off the line. Other then that I think he is a great OT.I'm curious where you got Pears giving up 6 sacks in 10 games though. I don't seem to remember it being that high.I also don't think Carlisle is the 32nd best RG in the league. He played pretty well for Denver the past two years, and the only reason they let him go is $$ and they thought Kuper was ready to go. You gave him a B last year, and IMO he didn't do anything to deserve being ranked lower (other then going to the raiders I guess but wouldn't that be a cohesive issue and not an individual player??). The Broncos were a bit optimistic in Kuper apparently, but fortunately Holland looks legit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If it helps at all rascal, my list is almost identical to Smith's, but I have Steinbach and Faneca flip-flopped.

 
The Giants offensive line was in great shape over the past few seasons but I don't like the re-shuffle that went on this season. It is one thing to let a player like Luke Petitgout sign elsewhere and I know that folks are torn on how effective he has been over the years (I for one believe he has been a stabilizing presence along the OL and a valuable run blocker). It is another to let a starting left tackle go without a clear vision in mind.I believe the Giants truly wanted Guy Whimper to step up but he has been a disaster so far this offseason and into training camp. That will force the Giants to move their excellent left guard into left tackle where he isn't as well suited. Don't get me wrong as I believe Diehl will be serviceable at tackle but he was a force at guard and it is a shame to move him over. It appears that Rich Seubert will have to slot into guard and he simply isn't in the same ballpark as Diehl.The right side of the offensive line is in good shape but the left side appears to be of concern. I have been on the high side in regards for the Giants OL for years but a downswing will happen in 2007.
Back problems and all, Pettigout brought some stability to the offensive line. He wasn't a Pro-Browler, but he was at least average. So the Giants decide that instead of getting an above average back-up to give him a breather, It would be easier to blow up the LT position, blow up the LG position and try and fill in from there. Going into last year, one of the things that made the Giants o-line good was Cohesion. They do not have that now. The 3 most important positions on any team are QB, LT and LCB in that order and the Giants just blew up LT. I totally agree with Chris Smith on this one.
The problem with Pettigout is he could blow up the LT position while playing it - you simply didn't know what you were going to get. It's likely going to be almost average, with a chance at a good game, but also a chance at rookie starting first game at LT bad. Anytime you've got an OL who's nickname is "False Start", that's a sign he's below average.
 
The Giants offensive line was in great shape over the past few seasons but I don't like the re-shuffle that went on this season. It is one thing to let a player like Luke Petitgout sign elsewhere and I know that folks are torn on how effective he has been over the years (I for one believe he has been a stabilizing presence along the OL and a valuable run blocker). It is another to let a starting left tackle go without a clear vision in mind.I believe the Giants truly wanted Guy Whimper to step up but he has been a disaster so far this offseason and into training camp. That will force the Giants to move their excellent left guard into left tackle where he isn't as well suited. Don't get me wrong as I believe Diehl will be serviceable at tackle but he was a force at guard and it is a shame to move him over. It appears that Rich Seubert will have to slot into guard and he simply isn't in the same ballpark as Diehl.The right side of the offensive line is in good shape but the left side appears to be of concern. I have been on the high side in regards for the Giants OL for years but a downswing will happen in 2007.
Back problems and all, Pettigout brought some stability to the offensive line. He wasn't a Pro-Browler, but he was at least average. So the Giants decide that instead of getting an above average back-up to give him a breather, It would be easier to blow up the LT position, blow up the LG position and try and fill in from there. Going into last year, one of the things that made the Giants o-line good was Cohesion. They do not have that now. The 3 most important positions on any team are QB, LT and LCB in that order and the Giants just blew up LT. I totally agree with Chris Smith on this one.
The problem with Pettigout is he could blow up the LT position while playing it - you simply didn't know what you were going to get. It's likely going to be almost average, with a chance at a good game, but also a chance at rookie starting first game at LT bad. Anytime you've got an OL who's nickname is "False Start", that's a sign he's below average.
I guess that it's just a semantics thing, but from a coaching perspective, I knew what I was getting when Luke lined up at LT.
 
I tried to read the article but it made no sense to me :penalty:

The system is:

A… this offensive line is a dominant unit with depth

B+… close to being a dominating unit

B… very good unit

C+… good unit but some question marks remain

C … average unit

D … below average unit

E … terrible unit

And the categories are:

Depth

Cohesion

Experience

And I don't get how Depth gets rated under experience--if they got an "A" for experience, they're a "dominant unit with depth". If they're an "A" for Cohesion, they're a "dominant unit with depth", but under Depth, they may just get an "average".

I don't know, I tried to understand this at work and my eyes started to glaze over, not sure how to read the information as it's presented.

 
Good work, Chris. The overall ranking on the 'Skins is dead on, as were the individual rankings on Samuels, Wade and Thomas. Once again I'll say though that Jansen is ranked too high and Rabach is ranked too low.

Consider this article on the Rabach issue.

Rabach spent four seasons in Baltimore but did not start regularly until his final year (2004). The Redskins made him an immediate free agent target after centers Cory Raymer and Lennie Friedman faltered, and the five-year, $13.75 million signing is one of Gibbs's smartest personnel maneuvers since his return.

"That's one we'd want back," Ravens General Manager Ozzie Newsome said. "That's a very good player we let get away."

Rabach provided stability in his first year here, but suffered serious leg lacerations in an all-terrain vehicle accident in April 2006, required a skin graft in June and was not fully cleared for all physical activities until training camp. Yet he was one of the few players to clearly master associate coach Al Saunders's complex offense. By the second half of the season, when the Redskins returned to their smash-mouth approach, Rabach was a wrecking ball. The Redskins allowed just 19 sacks -- fourth best in franchise history (only 12 were considered the result offensive-line errors) -- and Rabach set a physical tone with his pulling on outside running plays.

"I think my first year here they were feeling me out, finding exactly what I could do," Rabach said. "And last year I started to do a lot more things -- some athletic, different things -- which I really enjoyed."

"You can do a lot with a guy who can snap and pull," said tackle Jon Jansen, Rabach's close friend. "We got him out on some of the sweeps and it just really opened up the whole offense as to what can we do."

Rabach seeks no accolades, and widespread acclaim eludes him.

"I'm really disappointed that a lot of people don't recognize how good this guy is," said Joe Bugel, offensive line coach. "I think he is one of the top centers in the NFL, he's a great signal caller, he makes great preparation, he's an iron man who can take 100 snaps in a row, he has great leverage."
Also consider this article as it relates to Jansen:
The left side needs additional help from tight ends, taking them away from other routes and protections, and some coaches were also surprised by how often Jansen required a tight end stationed next to him to help with pass blocking last season. Tight ends Chris Cooley and Todd Yoder were stationed on the left side Saturday when Campbell was sacked on the right.
 
I tried to read the article but it made no sense to me :wall:

The system is:

A… this offensive line is a dominant unit with depth

B+… close to being a dominating unit

B… very good unit

C+… good unit but some question marks remain

C … average unit

D … below average unit

E … terrible unit

And the categories are:

Depth

Cohesion

Experience

And I don't get how Depth gets rated under experience--if they got an "A" for experience, they're a "dominant unit with depth". If they're an "A" for Cohesion, they're a "dominant unit with depth", but under Depth, they may just get an "average".

I don't know, I tried to understand this at work and my eyes started to glaze over, not sure how to read the information as it's presented.
Yeah, the whole thing doesn't make sense to me. I look at the Ravens listing and the details are all over the place. First of all, it's got Keydrick Vincent as the starting RG, but Chris Chester has been the starter all camp. Jason Brown is underrated at 25 among LGs, particularly when you consider he's listed behind Mulitalo, who was let go so he could start. The line gets an overall ranking of 18 with grades of A(Depth) B(Cohesion) and B(Experience)

Yet the grades for the following higher ranked teams are all the same or worse than the Ravens' grades:

Rank D C E

14 B B B+

15 B B B

10 A B B

13 B B B

7 B B B

5 C B+ B+ :boxing:

4 A B B

9 C B B

13 B B B

17 B C+ B

6 B B B+

I'm not saying the Ravens O-line should be considered elite by any means - they are likely somewhere in the middle of the road. I just don't think the information in the article is internally consistent. The pieces don't tell a consistent story. Maybe I'm missing something here.

The main thing that seems of value in the article is the comments section, and at least looking at the Ravens ones they aren't even that reliable (Chester could replace Vincent? ummm, how about He already has and Vincent may be fighting just to stay on the roster.) I don't know enough to evaluate the information for other teams, but if this is indicative of the quality, I can't put a lot of stock in it.

 
I hear your rationale on the G-men, but I guess we just have to agree to not disagree. Losing one very quesitonable player to Tampa Bay (ask other Giants fans what they think about Pettigout!) does not warrant banishing this line to the dredges of the NFL... there are MUCH worse lines out there! Coughlin is not a newbie, and he knows his job is on the line. No way he abandons the LT position unless he is convinced an improvement is made. Great line. I rate top 10 at a minimum.

I like some of your other picks (particularly the Bears line), but seeing the Gmen so, so low looks more like drama / attention getter stuff rather than statistical basis. I know you work very, very hard on your rankings and the drama stuff definatley doesn't apply, but I am just saying that is what it can appear to be at first glance. Probably has more to do than anything with the fact I am on one side of the G-men fence and you are on the other! Eye of the beholder type stuff. Thanks for replying. You get major props for that! :mellow:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Giants offensive line was in great shape over the past few seasons but I don't like the re-shuffle that went on this season. It is one thing to let a player like Luke Petitgout sign elsewhere and I know that folks are torn on how effective he has been over the years (I for one believe he has been a stabilizing presence along the OL and a valuable run blocker). It is another to let a starting left tackle go without a clear vision in mind.

I believe the Giants truly wanted Guy Whimper to step up but he has been a disaster so far this offseason and into training camp. That will force the Giants to move their excellent left guard into left tackle where he isn't as well suited. Don't get me wrong as I believe Diehl will be serviceable at tackle but he was a force at guard and it is a shame to move him over. It appears that Rich Seubert will have to slot into guard and he simply isn't in the same ballpark as Diehl.

The right side of the offensive line is in good shape but the left side appears to be of concern. I have been on the high side in regards for the Giants OL for years but a downswing will happen in 2007.
I still would be suprised if the Giants have that bad of a run offensive line in 2007 (27th). However, I have a very bad "feeling" about Brandon Jacobs. My feeling is rooted in him being too big to have a succesful season and in Eli Manning being as close to mentally handicapped as you can get while still playing QB.While I might not think the Giants O-line will be as bad as you do, I like your position becasue it gives me another reason to stay away from Brandon Jacobs like he decided to comment on the Vick situation. (HEY! HO!)

 
Packers

Didn't mention that the whole line stayed in Green Bay in the off season, worked out every day together and formed a 5 man bowling team or that Spitz has put on a hell of a lot of muscles (reported on Sirius by Gil Brandt - yesterday).

Also, there is a Detroit player note in the Green Bay section.

BUT great article. The depth and quality of the information gets better every year!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Giants offensive line was in great shape over the past few seasons but I don't like the re-shuffle that went on this season. It is one thing to let a player like Luke Petitgout sign elsewhere and I know that folks are torn on how effective he has been over the years (I for one believe he has been a stabilizing presence along the OL and a valuable run blocker). It is another to let a starting left tackle go without a clear vision in mind.

I believe the Giants truly wanted Guy Whimper to step up but he has been a disaster so far this offseason and into training camp. That will force the Giants to move their excellent left guard into left tackle where he isn't as well suited. Don't get me wrong as I believe Diehl will be serviceable at tackle but he was a force at guard and it is a shame to move him over. It appears that Rich Seubert will have to slot into guard and he simply isn't in the same ballpark as Diehl.

The right side of the offensive line is in good shape but the left side appears to be of concern. I have been on the high side in regards for the Giants OL for years but a downswing will happen in 2007.
Back problems and all, Pettigout brought some stability to the offensive line. He wasn't a Pro-Browler, but he was at least average. So the Giants decide that instead of getting an above average back-up to give him a breather, It would be easier to blow up the LT position, blow up the LG position and try and fill in from there. Going into last year, one of the things that made the Giants o-line good was Cohesion. They do not have that now. The 3 most important positions on any team are QB, LT and LCB in that order and the Giants just blew up LT. I totally agree with Chris Smith on this one.
The problem with Pettigout is he could blow up the LT position while playing it - you simply didn't know what you were going to get. It's likely going to be almost average, with a chance at a good game, but also a chance at rookie starting first game at LT bad. Anytime you've got an OL who's nickname is "False Start", that's a sign he's below average.
I guess that it's just a semantics thing, but from a coaching perspective, I knew what I was getting when Luke lined up at LT.
The Giants drop from the top quarter to 24th because they CUT your 27th ranked LT? That is complete and utter nonsense.Diehl is as solid as they come. The guy has started every single game (at multiple positions) since coming into the league 4 years ago! He is far better than "serviceable".

Seubert is not some scrub. He was an a up and coming, highly regarded starter prior to breaking his leg in 2003, and was among the best back ups in the league last year (after finally getting back to 100%). He is most certainly "in the same ballpark" as Diehl at LG.

And Whimper has not been a "disaster". Did you watch the Carolina game? He was excellent. He controlled his man in pass pro, he got to the second level and put guys on their backs run blocking, he showed the ability to switch off and handle two defenders by himself and he had the key block on the 4th and 6 screen to Droughns which gained 32 yards.

With regard to continuity, Petitgout went down in week 10 last year! This o-line closed out the season as a unit. They know each other and have played well together.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Giants offensive line was in great shape over the past few seasons but I don't like the re-shuffle that went on this season. It is one thing to let a player like Luke Petitgout sign elsewhere and I know that folks are torn on how effective he has been over the years (I for one believe he has been a stabilizing presence along the OL and a valuable run blocker). It is another to let a starting left tackle go without a clear vision in mind.

I believe the Giants truly wanted Guy Whimper to step up but he has been a disaster so far this offseason and into training camp. That will force the Giants to move their excellent left guard into left tackle where he isn't as well suited. Don't get me wrong as I believe Diehl will be serviceable at tackle but he was a force at guard and it is a shame to move him over. It appears that Rich Seubert will have to slot into guard and he simply isn't in the same ballpark as Diehl.

The right side of the offensive line is in good shape but the left side appears to be of concern. I have been on the high side in regards for the Giants OL for years but a downswing will happen in 2007.
Back problems and all, Pettigout brought some stability to the offensive line. He wasn't a Pro-Browler, but he was at least average. So the Giants decide that instead of getting an above average back-up to give him a breather, It would be easier to blow up the LT position, blow up the LG position and try and fill in from there. Going into last year, one of the things that made the Giants o-line good was Cohesion. They do not have that now. The 3 most important positions on any team are QB, LT and LCB in that order and the Giants just blew up LT. I totally agree with Chris Smith on this one.
The problem with Pettigout is he could blow up the LT position while playing it - you simply didn't know what you were going to get. It's likely going to be almost average, with a chance at a good game, but also a chance at rookie starting first game at LT bad. Anytime you've got an OL who's nickname is "False Start", that's a sign he's below average.
I guess that it's just a semantics thing, but from a coaching perspective, I knew what I was getting when Luke lined up at LT.
The Giants drop from the top quarter to 24th because they CUT your 27th ranked LT? That is complete and utter nonsense.Diehl is as solid as they come. The guy has started every single game (at multiple positions) since coming into the league 4 years ago! He is far better than "serviceable".

Seubert is not some scrub. He was an a up and coming, highly regarded starter prior to breaking his leg in 2003, and was among the best back ups in the league last year (after finally getting back to 100%). He is most certainly "in the same ballpark" as Diehl at LG.

And Whimper has not been a "disaster". Did you watch the Carolina game? He was excellent. He controlled his man in pass pro, he got to the second level and put guys on their backs run blocking, he showed the ability to switch off and handle two defenders by himself and he had the key block on the 4th and 6 screen to Droughns which gained 32 yards.

With regard to continuity, Petitgout went down in week 10 last year! This o-line closed out the season as a unit. They know each other and have played well together.
There is more to it than just where a player is ranked... His own Giants teammates wanted him back and called him the anchor of the offensive line. That cannot be ignored. 2nd, Diehl is an exceptional guard, not tackle. The Giants wanted Whimper to make an impact for a reason and that's to keep Diehl in the interior where he shines.

Whimper has struggled according to press releases...

June 15, 2007, 16:19

Giants :: OL

Giants LT Starter Becoming Clear

Mike Garofolo, Newark Star-Ledger - [Full Article]

The battle for the starting LT spot for the New York Giants is becoming a blowout. OT Guy Whimper has struggled the last two days with backup defensive linemen. This would mean OG David Diehl would start at LT instead of LG, which would create another hole.

.....

and I believe those clippings are valid or he would be the starting tackle as the team wanted during the off-season.

Finally I disagree with you on the talents of Seubert. I've eaten crow before in regards to offensive linemen and it's difficult to peg the abilities of 8+ linemen per team as it isn't easy to break down their talents always on film. There is no way that Seubert is in the class of Diehl at guard though.

Go through the left tackles and tell me who Diehl is better than at the position. His body type and his skill set screams interior lineman and he will be out of position if moved to tackle..

May 5, 2007, 11:45

Giants :: OL

OL Coach Talks About Filling Left Tackle Position

Michael Eisen, Giants.com - [Full Article]

New York Giants OL coach Pat Flaherty talks about how the Giants will fill the hole at left tackle after Luke Petitgout left for the Buccaneers. "There is nothing really in concrete right now as to who is going where. We do have seven guys that have been in the program, counting Guy Whimper. We have a lot of confidence in the room of the guys that have played, no matter what position they have played. Whimper is working awfully hard this offseason in the weight room with his technique. David Diehl has played some tackle but is more explosive at the guard position."

March 28, 2007, 06:30

Giants :: OL

Teammates Disappointed With OT Petitgout's Release

Arthur Staple, Newsday - [Full Article]

The Giants offensive line must adjust to left tackle Luke Petitgout's absence this season. "Was I disappointed? Absolutely," offensive guard Chris Snee said of Petitgout's release. "The O-line was a pretty tight group, and Luke was a leader. He was here eight years and gave a lot to this organization."

....

For much of my analysis of all 32 teams, I can only go with the news out there. If the news is completely inaccurate, conflicting or misleading, there will be times I am out in left field. Hopefully those times are few and far between however...

 
I tried to read the article but it made no sense to me :boxing:

The system is:

A… this offensive line is a dominant unit with depth

B+… close to being a dominating unit

B… very good unit

C+… good unit but some question marks remain

C … average unit

D … below average unit

E … terrible unit

And the categories are:

Depth

Cohesion

Experience

And I don't get how Depth gets rated under experience--if they got an "A" for experience, they're a "dominant unit with depth". If they're an "A" for Cohesion, they're a "dominant unit with depth", but under Depth, they may just get an "average".

I don't know, I tried to understand this at work and my eyes started to glaze over, not sure how to read the information as it's presented.
Yeah, the whole thing doesn't make sense to me. I look at the Ravens listing and the details are all over the place. First of all, it's got Keydrick Vincent as the starting RG, but Chris Chester has been the starter all camp. Jason Brown is underrated at 25 among LGs, particularly when you consider he's listed behind Mulitalo, who was let go so he could start. The line gets an overall ranking of 18 with grades of A(Depth) B(Cohesion) and B(Experience)

Yet the grades for the following higher ranked teams are all the same or worse than the Ravens' grades:

Rank D C E

14 B B B+

15 B B B

10 A B B

13 B B B

7 B B B

5 C B+ B+ :confused:

4 A B B

9 C B B

13 B B B

17 B C+ B

6 B B B+

I'm not saying the Ravens O-line should be considered elite by any means - they are likely somewhere in the middle of the road. I just don't think the information in the article is internally consistent. The pieces don't tell a consistent story. Maybe I'm missing something here.

The main thing that seems of value in the article is the comments section, and at least looking at the Ravens ones they aren't even that reliable (Chester could replace Vincent? ummm, how about He already has and Vincent may be fighting just to stay on the roster.) I don't know enough to evaluate the information for other teams, but if this is indicative of the quality, I can't put a lot of stock in it.
I'll tackle this one later today but in regards to Chester, I simply missed the fact he has been elevated to starter. I thought the team may leave Vincent in as he had an alright offseason to pave the way for Chester at center next year but obviously I missed the news on him. Chester is a player I like more than Vincent anyways both now and longterm.I'll respond later on.

 
There is more to it than just where a player is ranked... His own Giants teammates wanted him back and called him the anchor of the offensive line. That cannot be ignored.

2nd, Diehl is an exceptional guard, not tackle. The Giants wanted Whimper to make an impact for a reason and that's to keep Diehl in the interior where he shines.

Whimper has struggled according to press releases...

June 15, 2007, 16:19

Giants :: OL

Giants LT Starter Becoming Clear

Mike Garofolo, Newark Star-Ledger - [Full Article]

The battle for the starting LT spot for the New York Giants is becoming a blowout. OT Guy Whimper has struggled the last two days with backup defensive linemen. This would mean OG David Diehl would start at LT instead of LG, which would create another hole.

.....

and I believe those clippings are valid or he would be the starting tackle as the team wanted during the off-season.

Finally I disagree with you on the talents of Seubert. I've eaten crow before in regards to offensive linemen and it's difficult to peg the abilities of 8+ linemen per team as it isn't easy to break down their talents always on film. There is no way that Seubert is in the class of Diehl at guard though.

Go through the left tackles and tell me who Diehl is better than at the position. His body type and his skill set screams interior lineman and he will be out of position if moved to tackle..

May 5, 2007, 11:45

Giants :: OL

OL Coach Talks About Filling Left Tackle Position

Michael Eisen, Giants.com - [Full Article]

New York Giants OL coach Pat Flaherty talks about how the Giants will fill the hole at left tackle after Luke Petitgout left for the Buccaneers. "There is nothing really in concrete right now as to who is going where. We do have seven guys that have been in the program, counting Guy Whimper. We have a lot of confidence in the room of the guys that have played, no matter what position they have played. Whimper is working awfully hard this offseason in the weight room with his technique. David Diehl has played some tackle but is more explosive at the guard position."

March 28, 2007, 06:30

Giants :: OL

Teammates Disappointed With OT Petitgout's Release

Arthur Staple, Newsday - [Full Article]

The Giants offensive line must adjust to left tackle Luke Petitgout's absence this season. "Was I disappointed? Absolutely," offensive guard Chris Snee said of Petitgout's release. "The O-line was a pretty tight group, and Luke was a leader. He was here eight years and gave a lot to this organization."

....

For much of my analysis of all 32 teams, I can only go with the news out there. If the news is completely inaccurate, conflicting or misleading, there will be times I am out in left field. Hopefully those times are few and far between however...
All those reports you are quoting are from the spring, before training camp. A lot has happened since then. The player's comments are nothing more than guys supporting and showing allegiance to a former teammate. (Those guys aren't talent evaluators anyway).

The fact that Whimper hasn't emerged as the starting Left Tackle yet speaks more to Diehl's versatility and competitiveness than anything else. Diehl is 6'5, 319 btw so I don't understand your "body type" concern.

The fact is Whimper has shown some very encouraging signs. To characterize him as a "disaster" is completely inaccurate. As Coughlin's stated after the first pre-season game:

"There were some flashes last night with (Guy) Whimper who got to the second level and made some plays. He made a nice block on the screen, on Droughns’ screen."

Your research is clearly not comprehensive enough. As you admit you are "only going with the news out there" (and assuming the absolute credibility of your sources in the process). You are not following each of these guys on a day to day basis in training camp (and reading every report from every source). You are not watching the game tape on all these individuals (and re-watching the tape focused solely on the o-line). Essentially you are being led to faulty conclusions by relying on outdated, second hand and piece-meal information.

And frankly, if that's your "method" of analysis, I don't see how these rankings can be considered anything other than arbitrary?

FWIW if I were to rank the Giants o-line starters this year, I would rank them as follows:

1. Chris Snee

2. David Diehl

3. Rich Seubert

4. Kareem McKenzie

5. Shaun O'Hara

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is more to it than just where a player is ranked... His own Giants teammates wanted him back and called him the anchor of the offensive line. That cannot be ignored.

2nd, Diehl is an exceptional guard, not tackle. The Giants wanted Whimper to make an impact for a reason and that's to keep Diehl in the interior where he shines.

Whimper has struggled according to press releases...

June 15, 2007, 16:19

Giants :: OL

Giants LT Starter Becoming Clear

Mike Garofolo, Newark Star-Ledger - [Full Article]

The battle for the starting LT spot for the New York Giants is becoming a blowout. OT Guy Whimper has struggled the last two days with backup defensive linemen. This would mean OG David Diehl would start at LT instead of LG, which would create another hole.

.....

and I believe those clippings are valid or he would be the starting tackle as the team wanted during the off-season.

Finally I disagree with you on the talents of Seubert. I've eaten crow before in regards to offensive linemen and it's difficult to peg the abilities of 8+ linemen per team as it isn't easy to break down their talents always on film. There is no way that Seubert is in the class of Diehl at guard though.

Go through the left tackles and tell me who Diehl is better than at the position. His body type and his skill set screams interior lineman and he will be out of position if moved to tackle..

May 5, 2007, 11:45

Giants :: OL

OL Coach Talks About Filling Left Tackle Position

Michael Eisen, Giants.com - [Full Article]

New York Giants OL coach Pat Flaherty talks about how the Giants will fill the hole at left tackle after Luke Petitgout left for the Buccaneers. "There is nothing really in concrete right now as to who is going where. We do have seven guys that have been in the program, counting Guy Whimper. We have a lot of confidence in the room of the guys that have played, no matter what position they have played. Whimper is working awfully hard this offseason in the weight room with his technique. David Diehl has played some tackle but is more explosive at the guard position."

March 28, 2007, 06:30

Giants :: OL

Teammates Disappointed With OT Petitgout's Release

Arthur Staple, Newsday - [Full Article]

The Giants offensive line must adjust to left tackle Luke Petitgout's absence this season. "Was I disappointed? Absolutely," offensive guard Chris Snee said of Petitgout's release. "The O-line was a pretty tight group, and Luke was a leader. He was here eight years and gave a lot to this organization."

....

For much of my analysis of all 32 teams, I can only go with the news out there. If the news is completely inaccurate, conflicting or misleading, there will be times I am out in left field. Hopefully those times are few and far between however...
All those reports you are quoting are from the spring, before training camp. A lot has happened since then. The player's comments are nothing more than guys supporting and showing allegiance to a former teammate. (Those guys aren't talent evaluators anyway).

The fact that Whimper hasn't emerged as the starting Left Tackle yet speaks more to Diehl's versatility and competitiveness than anything else. Diehl is 6'5, 319 btw so I don't understand your "body type" concern.

The fact is Whimper has shown some very encouraging signs. To characterize him as a "disaster" is completely inaccurate. As Coughlin's stated after the first pre-season game:

"There were some flashes last night with (Guy) Whimper who got to the second level and made some plays. He made a nice block on the screen, on Droughns’ screen."

Your research is clearly not comprehensive enough. As you admit you are "only going with the news out there" (and assuming the absolute credibility of your sources in the process). You are not following each of these guys on a day to day basis in training camp (and reading every report from every source). You are not watching the game tape on all these individuals (and re-watching the tape focused solely on the o-line). Essentially you are being led to faulty conclusions by relying on outdated, second hand and piece-meal information.

And frankly, if that's your "method" of analysis, I don't see how these rankings can be considered anything other than arbitrary?

FWIW if I were to rank the Giants o-line starters this year, I would rank them as follows:

1. Chris Snee

2. David Diehl

3. Rich Seubert

4. Kareem McKenzie

5. Shaun O'Hara
The fact that Whimper hasn't emerged as the starting Left Tackle yet speaks more to Diehl's versatility and competitiveness than anything else. Diehl is 6'5, 319 btw so I don't understand your "body type" concern.

Your research is clearly not comprehensive enough. As you admit you are "only going with the news out there" (and assuming the absolute credibility of your sources in the process). You are not following each of these guys on a day to day basis in training camp (and reading every report from every source). You are not watching the game tape on all these individuals (and re-watching the tape focused solely on the o-line). Essentially you are being led to faulty conclusions by relying on outdated, second hand and piece-meal information.

And frankly, if that's your "method" of analysis, I don't see how these rankings can be considered anything other than arbitrary?
I will address your Whimper comment quickly and then the rest. The Giants wanted Whimper to claim stake to the left tackle job and he has failed to do so. That is the reality of the situation at the present time. Diehl is a skilled guard and the Giants would have preferred to leave him at his natural position.As far as the research goes, I believe I have worked very hard at this over the years. It isn't easy to break down the skills of an entire offensive line unit as so much goes into it other than talent. Play-calling skill, coaching, schemes, quarterback intelligence, all of that comes into play.

I have actually done some of what you stated above. Obviously it is not doable for myself to cover each of the 32 teams offensive line performances during training camp but I do try to read up on the news frequently and record the news into a database to draw from. I also do tape 2-3 games per week throughout the year and go through them trying to dissect the play of the entire line and the individuals.

Now, I am far from perfect in this. Look at the challenge of trying to predict skilled position players statistics throughout a season and then try to do the same for a position that often isn't followed by the camera during telecasts.

All in all, I believe I have a pretty good grasp on the 32 lines around the league and I'm proud to stand behind my thoughts and opinions. Now if you disagree with the analysis, that's fine, jump into a thread such as this and convince me that my stance is incorrect. I have been made to see the light before and it will happen again.

Obviously you like Seubert at guard and Diehl at tackle much more than I do. That's fine bro and the discussion that follows is what fantasy football is all about. I do my best to research the linemen but I will make mistakes and hopefully learn from them as I go forward.

Thanks for your input on the Giants situation. I appreciate it. :goodposting:

Oh and it's one thing to rank the linemen within the team but how do you rank the same linemen against the other 31 teams in the NFL. If you have the time I would love to see where you rank the starting five individually and as a team against the rest of the league.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I tried to read the article but it made no sense to me :shrug:The system is:A… this offensive line is a dominant unit with depthB+… close to being a dominating unitB… very good unitC+… good unit but some question marks remainC … average unitD … below average unitE … terrible unit And the categories are:DepthCohesionExperienceAnd I don't get how Depth gets rated under experience--if they got an "A" for experience, they're a "dominant unit with depth". If they're an "A" for Cohesion, they're a "dominant unit with depth", but under Depth, they may just get an "average". I don't know, I tried to understand this at work and my eyes started to glaze over, not sure how to read the information as it's presented.
I see the issue. The table with the grading scale was meant to be for the overall grades only. Originally I had Depth, Cohesion and Experience scored on a scale of 1 to 5 but changed it to letter grades, causing the confusion for you.If the team's overall grade is an 'A' - it is an outstanding unit with depth.Make sense?
 
I tried to read the article but it made no sense to me :shrug:The system is:A… this offensive line is a dominant unit with depthB+… close to being a dominating unitB… very good unitC+… good unit but some question marks remainC … average unitD … below average unitE … terrible unit And the categories are:DepthCohesionExperienceAnd I don't get how Depth gets rated under experience--if they got an "A" for experience, they're a "dominant unit with depth". If they're an "A" for Cohesion, they're a "dominant unit with depth", but under Depth, they may just get an "average". I don't know, I tried to understand this at work and my eyes started to glaze over, not sure how to read the information as it's presented.
I see the issue. The table with the grading scale was meant to be for the overall grades only. Originally I had Depth, Cohesion and Experience scored on a scale of 1 to 5 but changed it to letter grades, causing the confusion for you.If the team's overall grade is an 'A' - it is an outstanding unit with depth.Make sense?
There is no "overall grade" in the article. There is Overall Rank (1-32), but that's it.
 
I tried to read the article but it made no sense to me :pokey:The system is:A… this offensive line is a dominant unit with depthB+… close to being a dominating unitB… very good unitC+… good unit but some question marks remainC … average unitD … below average unitE … terrible unit And the categories are:DepthCohesionExperienceAnd I don't get how Depth gets rated under experience--if they got an "A" for experience, they're a "dominant unit with depth". If they're an "A" for Cohesion, they're a "dominant unit with depth", but under Depth, they may just get an "average". I don't know, I tried to understand this at work and my eyes started to glaze over, not sure how to read the information as it's presented.
I see the issue. The table with the grading scale was meant to be for the overall grades only. Originally I had Depth, Cohesion and Experience scored on a scale of 1 to 5 but changed it to letter grades, causing the confusion for you.If the team's overall grade is an 'A' - it is an outstanding unit with depth.Make sense?
There is no "overall grade" in the article. There is Overall Rank (1-32), but that's it.
hmmm... I had a grading table at the bottom of the article originally much like the one in our FBG magazine. I'll have to check and find out why it isn't there. The Teams were given overall grades from A to E.
 
This won't look great but here is the OL Grade table with the overall grades included...

Rank Team Overall Grade Depth Cohesion Experience

1 San Diego A B A A

2 Chicago A B A A+

3 Philadelphia A A A A

4 New England A A B B

5 Minnesota B+ C B+ B+

6 Tennessee B+ B B B

7 Jacksonville B+ B B B

8 San Francisco B+ A A A

9 New Orleans B C B B

10 Denver B A B B

11 Dallas B C+ C+ A

12 Carolina B B B B+

13 Green Bay B B B B

14 Pittsburgh B B B B

15 Cincinnati B B B B

16 Washington B C+ B+ A

17 Seattle B B C+ B

18 Baltimore B A B B

19 Tampa Bay C+ A C+ C+

20 Cleveland C+ B D B

21 Houston C+ C+ B B

22 NY Jets C+ C+ C+ C+

23 St. Louis C+ C+ B C+

24 NY Giants C+ B C+ B

25 Atlanta C C B C+

26 Indianapolis C C+ C+ B

27 Detroit C D C A

28 Buffalo C C+ C B

29 Arizona C- C+ D C

30 Kansas City C- B- C B

31 Miami D C+ E E

32 Oakland D D E B

 
Seeing as how the Chargers now top the list, wasn't it just a season ago that people were concerned with LDTs blocking. How did they go to the top that quick?
The big problem appeared to be at left tackle a year ago. Marcus McNeill was struggling with a problem back and it didn't seem likely he could step in and dominate. However as he all know, his exceptional talent was for real and his back isues appear to have disappeared. Last season I mentioned there was plenty of upside/hope with this young group but that they could be a year away. When McNeill came in and dominated like he did, the future came much faster than most realized.McNeill and company are very good.
 
Seeing as how the Chargers now top the list, wasn't it just a season ago that people were concerned with LDTs blocking. How did they go to the top that quick?
The big problem appeared to be at left tackle a year ago. Marcus McNeill was struggling with a problem back and it didn't seem likely he could step in and dominate. However as he all know, his exceptional talent was for real and his back isues appear to have disappeared. Last season I mentioned there was plenty of upside/hope with this young group but that they could be a year away. When McNeill came in and dominated like he did, the future came much faster than most realized.McNeill and company are very good.
CS -Nice work by the way! I am glad to see you are so passionate about the O line! A little love for the hog-mollies. :confused:
 
This won't look great but here is the OL Grade table with the overall grades included...

Rank Team Overall Grade Depth Cohesion Experience

1 San Diego A B A A

2 Chicago A B A A+

3 Philadelphia A A A A

4 New England A A B B

5 Minnesota B+ C B+ B+

6 Tennessee B+ B B B

7 Jacksonville B+ B B B

8 San Francisco B+ A A A

9 New Orleans B C B B

10 Denver B A B B
The SF 49er Offensive Line is perhaps the biggest surprise me. They are literally two seasons removed from being a totally pathetic team all around. Now they have a Top 10 ranked offensive line - ahead of the traditionally strong Denver Broncos even.I suspect some of this has to do with Frank Gore. Though I do wonder how much of this is retroactive looking versus forward looking.

But the emergence of the 49er OLine is perhaps the main rason why Frank Gore is poised to ascend to the elite RBs.

Anyone beg to differ with the 49er OLine ranking?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top