How Is Our Offensive Line Depth?

[Joel]

I may sound like a broken record at this point, but feel justified at THIS point. We were humiliated in front of the world, mainly because Seattle dominated our offensive line from the first scrimmage play, and all we've added are a rookie 3rd round OT and rookie 6th round C, while LOSING our starting LG. It's a small loss, IMHO; it's hard to imagine how Franklin can't be better, but this isn't about whether Cladys return is enough to make 4 starters destroyed throughout the last SB champions in the next one.

This is about Cladys injury, or rather, the frequency and importance of line injuries generally and how just ONE can transform a solid line (for the sake of argument, I'm assuming our starters are solid) into embarrassingly dangerous Swiss cheese. Linemen play the most punishing position, without aid of anyone else shielding them from a ton of DTs, DEs and LBs out for blood, and can't trot off the field for a rest on passing downs (or, conversely, running downs.) They play almost every offensive down with 300+ lb. men slamming into them so they DON'T slam into the QB or RB.

By seasons end, it's very unfortunate but likely at least one of five starters miss significant time: Since a line's only as strong as the weakest link through which defenders can mass and pour, just how much will the first injury diminish the line Manning and Ball depend on for opportunities to win games? In a nutshell (and assuming they make the team) how good are Justice, Painter, Schofield & Garland? If we were a few hours from a playoff game instead of just a preseason game, how comfortable would you be with one or more of them starting?

The QB is the single most important PLAYER on the team, but the offensive line is the single most important UNIT, and Super Bowl XLVIII was a painful object lesson on that. With adequate blocking, teams that can't run can pass (like us last year) and teams that can't pass can run (like us in 2011) but WITHOUT good blocking teams can do NOTHING (like us in the SB.)

So, a sincere honest question for our resident camp followers: How good are our depth linemen? If Clady (or anyone) gets hurt again, Franklin transitions poorly to a spot he hasn't palyed since college and/or speed ends blow past Clark as easily on the right as they did on the left, do we have legit Plans B, or just prayers?

[Ziggy]

The problem in the super bowl was in 3 spots. LT- Clady was out. LG- Beadles was horrible, and RT- Franklin didn't have quick enough feet.
The new line has hall of fame talent at LT and a first team all pro at RG. Franklin is back to his natural position, so the pressure that Beadles was giving up in Manning's face becuause he couldn't hold the POA against more powerful players goes away. Clark has better feet at RT. It will take some time to adjust, but he will be fine there. We've improved the line massively in 3 spots since the super bowl.

Irregardless, you're going to find something to complain about Joel. It's simply what you do. This line is far far better than last season's line, and when healthy will be a top 3 Oline this season.

[Joel]

It might be worth a thread to debate whether merely SHUFFLING a line abused throughout a SB made it any better but, again, I assumed for sake of argument those starters are much improved.

This is about the great likelihood at least ONE of them misses a big chunk of time like Clady did (hopefully not at seasons end, though it's MOST likely then.) At some point—quite possibly more than one—we'll need someone to step up and fill for a starter who CAN'T play, however good he would/n't be if he could. Are they up to it, or will that look like SB XLVIII?

As for always finding cause for complaint: "Irregardless" is still not a word. :tongue: If you can't find cause for complaint though, rewatch that SB our best linemen couldn't play—if you can bear it....

[OrangeHoof]

You two are talking past each other.

Joel: What do we do if we lose a key person on the line?

Ziggy: We upgraded three OL positions just by getting Clady back and reshuffling positions.

To answer Joel's question. They soldier on. That's what teams do when they lose a key player. We still *got* to the SB without Clady. Having him back is a nice upgrade but the team won't quit if he gets hurt again. Joel might as well be asking "What do we do if Manning gets hurt this season? We didn't upgrade this position during the offseason and Manning was terrible in the Super Bowl..." If any player is injured, the rest do their best without. Next man up and all that.

[Joel]

Manning WASN'T terrible in the SB, a tribute to his ability given how our awful line and Seattles fierce pass rush taxed his quick reads and quick throws to their utmost. The answer to what we'd do if we lost him for the season is pretty simple though: Start looking at 2015 draft picks, because I strongly doubt Oz is ready to take us to a title. The team won't quit, because the players and coaches didn't get to the pros by giving up easy, and I'd keep rooting hard for the team right down to the final final gun—I just wouldn't expect much.

I genuinely don't KNOW what our line depth is like though: That, and knowing many folks here live close enough to visit training camp in person, is why I'm asking if losing Clady, or Vasquez—ANYONE—would doom us as assuredly as losing Manning. It's not like 4 Pro Bowlers and one scrub averages out to a quality line; defenders can and will exploit that one glaring hole.

[Dapper Dan]

No matter what, we will be in trouble if we have as many injuries as last year. That's how it goes. We can't have 53 starters on our team.

[BroncoWave]

We can't have 53 starters on our team.

This pretty much sums it up.

[MOtorboat]

:laugh:

[Simple Jaded]

Loaded with All-World talent, I anticipate them keeping at least 10-15 OL, and here's why; they have varying degrees of talent of course, from All-Pro to Can't-play-dead, but they're all super nice people with top-notch intangibles and the entire team rallies behind them because they refuse to lose and look great in underwear.

Even if an all-time great were available I wouldn't trade a single one of them.

God bless.

[Joel]

No matter what, we will be in trouble if we have as many injuries as last year. That's how it goes. We can't have 53 starters on our team.
No doubt; I can only hope and pray we used up all of this years injuries last year (though I'm pretty sure that's not how conditioning works.) I don't expect to have a bench full of starters, but a solid if unremarkable backup OT and OG would be nice. I'd be thrilled to have a quality 6th lineman who could be both.

Offensive linemen get hurt; it's just the nature of the beast when in the trenches on every offensive play. Pass rushing DEs swap places with run stuffers all the time, but whoever's blocking them just stays right there waiting for the next charge, whether it's shot from a cannon at just over 250 or a lumbering landslide just under 350. Do that for a couple hours every Sunday, plus all the practice time, and you have a lot of guys playing hurt by Thanksgiving; it's just a question of HOW hurt, and how good the "next man" is.

Why's this such an unreasonable question? It's literally HALF our offense—the half that cost us a Super Bowl—gets more contact than any other spot, and we can't run NOR pass without it. We have ONE starting QB, but people worry about his backup; we have ONE starting RB, but people even worry about the backups backup—shouldn't we worry a little about who backs up FIVE offensive linemen? As much as people worry about depth at DE, LB and DT, shouldn't we worry some about who backs up the people blocking them, who don't get to swap out when they do?

I hope all five of our starting offensive linemen stay healthy all season (and play better than they have tonight; they couldn't even score on Houstons SECOND team D.) I just don't EXPECT them all to stay healthy all year; the law of averages and the nature of their position argues we'll see some backup linemen for extended periods: I'm just trying to get a feel for what that'll mean.

[silkamilkamonico]

You think our oline has no depth? You should look around the nfl and see how bad a majority of these teams depth is.

[Joel]

You think our oline has no depth? You should look around the nfl and see how bad a majority of these teams depth is.
Where'd I say that? I asked a question, not a statement.

[silkamilkamonico]

You think our oline has no depth? You should look around the nfl and see how bad a majority of these teams depth is.
Where'd I say that? I asked a question, not a statement.

To answer your question, the oline depth looks like it should for an nfl team.

Backups are not starters for a reason.

[Joel]

To answer your question, the oline depth looks like it should for an nfl team.

Backups are not starters for a reason.
Even if that's wishful thinking. But if none of our backups are starting caliber, are any good enough to be serviceable in a pinch? Because I expect to be pinched SOMEWHERE by February.

[Simple Jaded]

Will Montgomery has started a ton of games.

[silkamilkamonico]

Even if that's wishful thinking. But if none of our backups are starting caliber, are any good enough to be serviceable in a pinch? Because I expect to be pinched SOMEWHERE by February.

As does every team.

We're basically all star stacked at every position except oline. We're simply average at oline (depth). Barring major plethora of fluke injuries, it isn't going to be an either or type deal. If we don't win the SUperBowl, it isn't going to be because we also didn't have all star depth at oline.

[Joel]

Will Montgomery has started a ton of games.
Good point, and it looks like rougly half were at G before (and after) he moved to C and got a bunch of starts there. Okay, that makes me more comfortable inside, especially if we keep Painter, and between Justice and Schofield I don't feel completely naked at OT. See, that wasn't so hard, was it? :tongue: Now the only question is whether we can get away with sticking Schofield, Garland and/or Paradis on the PS without someone else signing them to their 53, though I believe we have the option of promoting them to ours instead if another team DOES try that.

[Simple Jaded]

Winston has started his share of games and Painter certainly has the physical ability of a starter. Schoefield and Painter are developmental guys atm tho, and I'm starting to wonder if Winston even makes the roster, considering Cornish has played with the 2's over him.

[Joel]

As does every team.

We're basically all star stacked at every position except oline. We're simply average at oline (depth). Barring major plethora of fluke injuries, it isn't going to be an either or type deal. If we don't win the SUperBowl, it isn't going to be because we also didn't have all star depth at oline.
The problem (or one of them) is injuries/lack of talent almost ANYWHERE else can be compensated for elsewhere. The passing game steps up to bail out the running game, or vice versa; LBs blitz more to make up for weak DEs; safeties come up to help weak LBs; DEs play the run more to help weak DTs—but an offense with no line is helpless even with all the talent in the world at the highly paid high profile "skill" positions (See: SB XLVIII.) And linemen get hit more each GAME than most QBs do all YEAR.

The other problem is the line's a lot like that old Doonesbury strip about nuclear missile defense; "Oops, one got through: Bye...." That makes a guy like Montgomery huge; since he's started at ALL interior line positions, having him waiting in the wings means we just have to come up with a good Plan B if Clark or (heaven forbid) Clady's hurt. Come to think of it, even then we'd have the option of putting Montgomery at LG and moving Franklin back to OT if we don't trust Justice or Schofield.

That one guy, that 6th linemen, instantly makes me feel far better about our line over the season.

[Joel]

Winston has started his share of games and Painter certainly has the physical ability of a starter. Schoefield and Painter are developmental guys atm tho, and I'm starting to wonder if Winston even makes the roster, considering Cornish has played with the 2's over him.
Well, Cornish (like Schofield and Painter) has PS eligibility left; Justice doesn't, so our only choices are cut him or keep him, but we have some flexibility with the others (SOME; I'm still a little nervous about PSing a 3rd round OT in a passing league, but we'd still have the option of calling him up and releasing someone else if another team tried to sign Schofield.) I honestly don't know what to think of Winston Justice, a former 2nd round OT some considered a 1st rounder, and whom everyone since has either loved or hated.

Montgomerys flexible starting resume's huge though, so thanks again for pointing that out: It just leaves the OT spot to shore up, and we only need ONE of multiple options to work out there.

[Simple Jaded]

Well, Cornish (like Schofield and Painter) has PS eligibility left; Justice doesn't, so our only choices are cut him or keep him, but we have some flexibility with the others (SOME; I'm still a little nervous about PSing a 3rd round OT in a passing league, but we'd still have the option of calling him up and releasing someone else if another team tried to sign Schofield.) I honestly don't know what to think of Winston Justice, a former 2nd round OT some considered a 1st rounder, and whom everyone since has either loved or hated.

Montgomerys flexible starting resume's huge though, so thanks again for pointing that out: It just leaves the OT spot to shore up, and we only need ONE of multiple options to work out there.

Ya need a swing T too, Winston has played both T's this preseason, he just hasn't played since. Schofield never makes it to PS (he'd have to clear waivers) but Cornish would (probably, maybe).

[Joel]

Ya need a swing T too, Winston has played both T's this preseason, he just hasn't played since. Schofield never makes it to PS (he'd have to clear waivers) but Cornish would (probably, maybe).
Justice would probably be my first choice, but he doesn't have PS eligiblity, so it's an all-or-nothing deal that leaves me wanting to put him on the final 53 and a second choice on the PS. As I understand it, if we PS Schofield and someone else tries to sign him to their 53, we can keep him by simply releasing someone else and adding him to OUR 53, but it does seem like a given that's what would end up happening. Maybe we should try it, swap him for Thompson if someone tries to sign him, then just release Hillman the first time he fumbles and call up Thompson. :tongue: