How Crucial Do you Consider The Offensive Line?

[Hunter2_1]

I've got a bee in my bonnet over this issue. I am in the camp of; No OLine - No Offense. I think we can look no further than the past couple of season as evidence. Teams with poor offensive lines (there were plenty) had their entire offenses effectively torpedoed, unless they had miraculous play from their QB (Texans and Hawks, I'm looking at you). The majority of the worst teams had poor OLines. 

I'm sure most of us in here agree the OL is crucial, but I'm wondering how high up your priority list it is. I want to get a feel if you consider it as important as I do.

[BleedTheClock]

It is most certainly the most crucial unit in football. You can't do anything with a terrible OL. Can't pass, can't run.

 

That being said, it isn't like you need to have 5 elite players on your OL to be successful either. You can get it done with middle of the road talent, but you absolutely cannot be in the bottom half of the league in terms of OL play and expect to be a championship caliber team.

[Kip Smithers]

Most important unit in football, moreso than the QB.

[Soko]

Behind QB, but it’s up there. Easily more important than skills position guys on offense. 

I think there’s more evidence that offenses often go further with a great QB and a bad line vs a bad QB and a great line.

But I suppose that’s hard to judge because a quarterback with god awful pocket presence/receivers that take forever to get open/coaches that can’t get men open/a runningback like Trent Richardson, will make an offensive line look worse than it is. The reverse can be done sometimes as well.

[minutemancl]

It is 5 of your 11 offensive starters; just about half of your offense, and they are out there every snap. Just from a plain mathematical standpoint, it is very important. Not having a good one makes you have to make concessions in every facet of your offensive scheme just to operate properly. You can't have your quarterback have any more than a 2, 3 step drop, you have to bring in extra blockers to run the ball, and so on.

Overall, it is highly detrimental to your football team to have a bad offensive line. I'd argue that you need at least an average one to have any serious success. 

[Rich7sena]

I voted the first option, but I don't think the offensive line has to be elite, but it can't be incompetent. If you have an incompetent offensive line you're not getting anywhere. That said, if you have an elite offensive line unit then you can cover up other units with clock management.

[chris00cm]

It's importance rivals that of a QB. An OL is the running game. That doesn't mean I'd advise spending all first rounders on OL, because it's scarcity does not rival QB.
I do advise spending big on them in free agency and spending mid-round picks on developmental types. Feel like they are safe bets because they do seem to age as well as any other position in the sport.

[KhanYouDigIt]

You win games in the trenches. If you have a strong OL and a strong DL, you’re going to win games in the NFL.

 

[JaguarCrazy2832]

5 minutes ago, KhanYouDigIt said:

You win games in the trenches. If you have a strong OL and a strong DL, you’re going to win games in the NFL.

 

Pretty much this. Protect your QB, pressure the other, run the ball/control the clock, dont allow your opponent to do so. Pretty much the whole game summed up but the trenches play the biggest role in that by far

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

Unless your QB is Russell Wilson, it's the most important unit on offense.

[Jakuvious]

I think it's slightly different from many other positional groups, because I think it is phenomenally important to have an OL that isn't bad, but isn't nearly as crucial to have one that's good, necessarily. A weak link, or several weak links on the OL, can severely derail an offense. If you have competence across the board on the OL, that's at least going to allow the offense to fully operate, and generally any mismatches left (so an average RT against Khalil Mack or something) can be supported pretty easily. Whereas having an elite RT would be unnecessary in the games you're not playing against a Mack type. And I think history reinforces this. Aside from the early 2000s, where elite offensive lines were kind of a defining characteristic of the age, your best offenses haven't really consistently lined up with the best OLs, nor have your best teams overall. But you won't find many great teams or offenses that have clear problems at OL.

And obviously it would still be better to have an elite OL. But I think the difference an impact between an average G and an elite G doesn't compare to the difference between an average WR or CB and an elite one. So from a team building perspective I think it ends up better not having elite individuals for the monetary aspect.

[BAConrad]

1 hour ago, Jakuvious said:

I think it's slightly different from many other positional groups, because I think it is phenomenally important to have an OL that isn't bad, but isn't nearly as crucial to have one that's good, necessarily. A weak link, or several weak links on the OL, can severely derail an offense. If you have competence across the board on the OL, that's at least going to allow the offense to fully operate, and generally any mismatches left (so an average RT against Khalil Mack or something) can be supported pretty easily. Whereas having an elite RT would be unnecessary in the games you're not playing against a Mack type. And I think history reinforces this. Aside from the early 2000s, where elite offensive lines were kind of a defining characteristic of the age, your best offenses haven't really consistently lined up with the best OLs, nor have your best teams overall. But you won't find many great teams or offenses that have clear problems at OL.

And obviously it would still be better to have an elite OL. But I think the difference an impact between an average G and an elite G doesn't compare to the difference between an average WR or CB and an elite one. So from a team building perspective I think it ends up better not having elite individuals for the monetary aspect.

But the tricky thing is that the OL is far and away the most reliant of any positional group on its ability to play together as a 5 man unit. It cant be said enough how vital chemistry/fluidity/cohesiveness etc is for an OL. 

While I can't disagree with your opinion of not really needing any "elite individuals" at OL....I also dont 100% agree at all. On one hand, we know how a great OL coach can take really almost any mediocre or so OL and coach them up into making them perform like a top OL should. IE New England and Pittsburgh. But those kind of coaches dont just grow on trees also. So most of the time its best to maximize your chances of having the best OL possible by getting the best players possible ( while also of course getting players who fit your scheme(s) ). Because of the new CBA rules which limit practice especially. 

I am a firm believer in your OL needing to be strong at ever single spot. One bad player, and your entire front can just get dominated. Look at what happened to Dallas with Byron Bell/Chaz Green. The Eagles in 2016 when Lane was out for 10 or however many games and we had no capable back up. Theres plenty more examples. Its a big reason why I think Dallas' OL is severely overrated (at least in the mainstream media and such). Theyre top 5 when they have their big 3 in. But theyre not the best unit in the league, let alone some historically great one. If Tyron Smith and Zach Martin and Frederick are stonewalling their pass rushing assignments in a game, it wont mean much if Cameron Fleming and/or La'el Collins is on the other side, getting bent over by a team with a strong or even decent DL/front 7. 

So to answer the question: IMO a team's OL is more important than any other positional group in football excluding QB. Significantly. 

[game3525]

Quote

So to answer the question: IMO a team's OL is more important than any other positional group in football excluding QB. Significantly. 

DL is more important then the OL.

We have seen teams with bad OL's win the Super Bowl. The 2008 Steelers, 2011 Giants, 2013 Seahawks, 2014 Patriots, 2015 Broncos all had pretty poor offensive lines, but they were able to get away with it because of the QBs ability to move (Big Ben and Wilson) or get rid of the ball quickly (Brady, Eli, and Peyton). On flip side, how many teams have won the Super Bowl by being terrible in the defensive line? Maybe the 2006 Colts, that is the only team I can think of in recent memory. 

[Hunter2_1]

So proud of you guys 

[Hunter2_1]

6 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

I think it's slightly different from many other positional groups, because I think it is phenomenally important to have an OL that isn't bad, but isn't nearly as crucial to have one that's good, necessarily. A weak link, or several weak links on the OL, can severely derail an offense.

Yeah completely agree with this. A safe, consistent unit is usually more effective than a unit with 2 or 3 All Pros and 2 or 3 nobodies. 

6 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

 

If you have competence across the board on the OL, that's at least going to allow the offense to fully operate, and generally any mismatches left (so an average RT against Khalil Mack or something) can be supported pretty easily. Whereas having an elite RT would be unnecessary in the games you're not playing against a Mack type. And I think history reinforces this. Aside from the early 2000s, where elite offensive lines were kind of a defining characteristic of the age, your best offenses haven't really consistently lined up with the best OLs, nor have your best teams overall. But you won't find many great teams or offenses that have clear problems at OL.

And obviously it would still be better to have an elite OL. But I think the difference an impact between an average G and an elite G doesn't compare to the difference between an average WR or CB and an elite one. So from a team building perspective I think it ends up better not having elite individuals for the monetary aspect.

Nice post. An interesting recent case study is Dallas. They HAD that OL consisting of elite players and good players (Smith, Leary, Frederick, Martin, Free), and you could argue it propelled the running game and allowed for Dak to thrive. Last year, they operate a some elite and some subpar line, with obvious weaknesses, and it didn't look anywhere near as effective. Despite still having the 3 elite players, they couldn't overcome the weak links.