How Crucial Do you Consider The Offensive Line?

[MSURacerDT55]

Having a good OL is everything to an offense, it takes a poor offense to at least an average offense, it helps a terrible QB become at least average with a sustained run game, ability to extend drives by making basic throws or getting short yardage gains for first downs and get at least some points on the board whether it is 3 or 7 points. Also depending on how good the defense is, this can even be a playoff team.

Also a testament to how important the trenches are, I was at a Rivals camp in Columbus this weekend and Mike Tomlin was there and spent pretty much all of his time watching the OL/DL 1 on 1s, he knows where the game is won.

[LaserFocus]

It's extremely unusual for a team with a subpar offensive line to win the Super Bowl, but the 2008 Steelers were able to overcome that deficiency. Big Ben had a tremendous year, despite being under duress, the +2 TD/int ratio was deceiving. In the SB, the line caused the safety, giving Arizona two points, and committed a penalty on the first play of that game-winning drive.

[Snake Plissken]

I believe A, B, C, and D are all correct depending on the situation.  It is the most crucial unit on the team, but it doesn't need to be the best unit on the team.  The need for quality on the OL is partially tied to the quality of the QB.  A good QB lessens the need for a higher quality line (as long as option D hold true).  A lesser QB requires a better line for the offense to be functional.

Establishing a quality OL would be second on my priority list after QB.

[The Gnat]

I went with most crucial on the offense. Now, it's more important to have a great QB in many ways, but a great QB behind an incompetent offensive line isn't going to win you a ton of games. They'll win you more than you should with your line, but not likely get you to the promised land. But if you have a solid unit from tackle to tackle that plays well together, you don't need to have a Dallas Cowboys-esque offensive line where they are considered pretty high up in the rankings for their position.

[SmittyBacall]

Ask Cincinnati.

[tom cody]

Option 3 for me. Though I would say a good LT is as important as a lot of other positions in football. 

[AkronsWitness]

It depends who your QB is and how your offense is ran. For example, the Broncos offensive line has been horrific for 8 years. However, Peyton Manning can make you not even notice it with how fast he gets the ball out and his presnap reads. He could get around it. The other side of the coin is that when a bad QB was in the game like Siemian, the offensive line was far more noticeable for being horrific and is a large reason why the Broncos have been bad in recent years after Manning left.

So. My answer is your offensive line is only as import as how good your QB is.

[43M]

Its not fair saying "its more important than QB" because thats 5 players compared to one.   Of course 5 players playing collectively as a UNIT is going to be more important than any one player.

OLine is obviously very important....a bad one can hold back an entire offense.....however, an elite one isnt going to (consistently) get you far without a QB.

A great QB can win championships with average and even below average OLines.

However, a great OLine is going to have much more trouble winning with an average or below average QB (unless there is an elite running game and defense like the 2000 Ravens).

QB is still the most important INDIVIDUAL PIECE.....thats not even debatable in todays league.

OLine is the most important collective UNIT.

[Johnny Nix]

saw it happen first hand to the Bengals last year. Absolutely couldn't do anything behind that offensive line. Hopefully the additions we made this year will help

[TheVillain112]

On 5/9/2018 at 8:40 AM, SmittyBacall said:

Ask Cincinnati.

For real.  OL is the most important unit on a football team.  That doesn't mean the rest of the team can be hot garbage, but I think a strong OL can mask A LOT of issues.

The other thing is with the exception of a very few truly elite players (Antonio Brown, Julio Jones, OBJ, Shady McCoy, Russell Wilson, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Gronk, and some I'm too lazy to keep listing) the difference between a lot of the other players is just needing an additional 2 seconds to get open, or a slightly bigger hole to run through, or another 1-2 seconds to go through progressions.  Cam Newton the year the Panthers went to the SB looked great in games where he got protection, and looked average to subpar (as a passer) in games he didn't (like the Superbowl against that Denver pass rush).  There's a lot of talented players in the NFL and the variance between them isn't as large as a lot of people think it is.  Which is why some just need that extra 1-2 seconds...

[Broncofan]

It's absolutely crucial to have a top 10 OL if you have an average QB.

It's still important to have an OL that won't get your QB killed, even if that QB is elite.   Luck, Russell Wilson 2016 all speak to this.

And if it's a bad OL - forget about it.  No QB barring the GOAT will make it play even halfway decently.   

It kind of speaks to something another league owner said in our FFB leagues - there's more than one path to a SB champ nowadays.  It used to be the franchise QB, and competent D, or the elite D that could mask a bad QB (but with zero margin for error).   Now there's a 3rd way - not necessarily an elite D, but a team that absolutely kills it on both sides of the trenches (even if it's not a complete D).   You can very clearly point to the Eagles' playoff run with Foles as indicative of this route.   The less of a difference maker your QB is, the more important the OL becomes.

[Spartacus]

I may be in the minority but as long as every player is "average" and play well together I don't think you need a great unit. What I think you can't have is an extremely weak link in the line. If you have one guy that's consistently beat every play the whole line struggles. 

[Broncofan]

43 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

I may be in the minority but as long as every player is "average" and play well together I don't think you need a great unit. What I think you can't have is an extremely weak link in the line. If you have one guy that's consistently beat every play the whole line struggles. 

To be fair, having at-least average play across each position without weaknesses, probably puts that OL in a top 10 overall performance.    The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

[BullsandBroncos]

I'd say the 3rd or 4th option from the top. More likely the 4th. Our Offensive Line wasn't absolutely terrible in 2015 when we won the Super Bowl, but the only player still in the NFL or starting caliber on it was Matt Paradis, and a finished Evan Mathis. Ryan Harris, Michael Schofield, and a somehow-became-mediocre-out-of-the-blue Louis Vasquez.

 

Probably could've won that game with Siemian or Osweiler in so we can't say that Peyton helped them excel in that game.

[SteelKing728]

Im conflicted. I'm a defense guy so I'd say DL>OL but those are the top 2 most important units in football. You don't even need an elite QB to win a championship with both a strong DL and OL (Roethlisberger 05', Eli Manning 07', Flacco 12' and Foles 17').

I went with the second option.