JerryK Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Hi guys, I was hoping to run this question to some of you X & O guys. It seems like Pass protection, Run Blocking, even tired defenses could be attributed to an OL. I know teams need to be "balanced".... but what would happen if a team spent 3/4 of their cap on the OL? Could a marginal team go a long way with insane blockers? We've seen the Colts spend it all on offense (until this year) and not get far. I think KC has gone this route also the last few years. but has any other team dumped it ALL on the line? Just curious what would happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Hi guys, I was hoping to run this question to some of you X & O guys. It seems like Pass protection, Run Blocking, even tired defenses could be attributed to an OL. I know teams need to be "balanced".... but what would happen if a team spent 3/4 of their cap on the OL? Could a marginal team go a long way with insane blockers? We've seen the Colts spend it all on offense (until this year) and not get far. I think KC has gone this route also the last few years. but has any other team dumped it ALL on the line? Just curious what would happen. they would give their $300k/year QB all the time in the world to throw interceptions and their $400k/year RB would get 1 foot through the hole and then be crushed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faba Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Actually the Colts and the Pats are two examples of offensive lines the last couple of years they have been mostly built with low middle round draft choices and undrafted free agents they have developed- that is the key reason for their success instead of wildly spending money on one area Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudcat21 Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 know teams need to be "balanced".... but what would happen if a team spent 3/4 of their cap on the OL? That team would give up a load of points and not score any. You need playmakers and have to get a balance between good OL and playmakers under the salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryK Posted November 3, 2005 Author Share Posted November 3, 2005 they would give their $300k/year QB all the time in the world to throw interceptions and their $400k/year RB would get 1 foot through the hole and then be crushed. Perhaps, but we're paying a lot more for the same thing now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Perhaps, but we're paying a lot more for the same thing now. hard to argue with you when you're right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 I think to win it all you have to be good at everything. Pick a few things to be really good\great at. The problem with paying so much for the O.L. is that the defense would be terrible. Let's say you ate up the time of possession you would still give up points. You would have a good team. You would not be able to win it all that way though IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Hi guys, I was hoping to run this question to some of you X & O guys. It seems like Pass protection, Run Blocking, even tired defenses could be attributed to an OL. I know teams need to be "balanced".... but what would happen if a team spent 3/4 of their cap on the OL? Could a marginal team go a long way with insane blockers? We've seen the Colts spend it all on offense (until this year) and not get far. I think KC has gone this route also the last few years. but has any other team dumped it ALL on the line? Just curious what would happen. Jerry a few years later and you got your wish! I hope it works out but there are 4 1st rounders on the OLine now I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNorth09 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Hi guys, I was hoping to run this question to some of you X & O guys. It seems like Pass protection, Run Blocking, even tired defenses could be attributed to an OL. I know teams need to be "balanced".... but what would happen if a team spent 3/4 of their cap on the OL? Could a marginal team go a long way with insane blockers? We've seen the Colts spend it all on offense (until this year) and not get far. I think KC has gone this route also the last few years. but has any other team dumped it ALL on the line? Just curious what would happen. The 2006 Minnesota Vikings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drago Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 IMO, you'd have the old kansas city chiefs. It would bring up arguments of whomever the running back is to be a first ballott HOF. Remember how good Derrick Blaylock looked behind Shields, Roaf and Waters? You'd never have to spend as much as you are implying, but if a team spent 5 first round picks in five consecutive drafts on the offensive line position, they'd have an interesting look to them. Althought those old chief teams never won anything, they were very competitive teams. It goes to show that you do need to have a few playmakers on the defensive side, but i thought it was a really interesting team to follow. I've always thought that if you could have the best of any unit in the NFL, and the rest would be average, you'd go the farthest with having the best Offensive Line than any other. JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drago Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 The 2006 Minnesota Vikings. that's not the fairest comparison, they have the worst QB to hit this league for at least a decade. That, and i'm not sold on either of the Vikings tackles, they can run block, but that is about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNorth09 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 IMO, you'd have the old kansas city chiefs. It would bring up arguments of whomever the running back is to be a first ballott HOF. Remember how good Derrick Blaylock looked behind Shields, Roaf and Waters? You'd never have to spend as much as you are implying, but if a team spent 5 first round picks in five consecutive drafts on the offensive line position, they'd have an interesting look to them. Althought those old chief teams never won anything, they were very competitive teams. It goes to show that you do need to have a few playmakers on the defensive side, but i thought it was a really interesting team to follow. I've always thought that if you could have the best of any unit in the NFL, and the rest would be average, you'd go the farthest with having the best Offensive Line than any other. JMO. If I was to have the best of anything it would be QB. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are the two best QB's in the NFL and have won like 4 out of the past 6 Super Bowls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNorth09 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 that's not the fairest comparison, they have the worst QB to hit this league for at least a decade. That, and i'm not sold on either of the Vikings tackles, they can run block, but that is about it. McKinnie is very good (when he isn't doing unnatural things with strippers on boats) and Cook is solid. Hutchinson is hands down the best Guard in the NFL. I agree their QB situation is awful but it's still a fair comparison b/c their offensive line is one of the best in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.