Offensive Line

**jonboy79** · 03-07-2013, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

Michael Oher was actually fairly good in pass pro this year, it was his run blocking that was atrocious.

What you talkin' 'bout Willis?
He gave up 10 or 10.5 sacks an over 40 pressures. IIRC, only Arizona's pair of tackles and one other OT allowed more or graded out worse in passbl;ockign by PFF.

**bmorecareful** · 03-07-2013, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

Oher has played tackle for us on one side or the other for virtually all of Joe's career and neither has yet to miss a game, much less finish the year on IR. I get that Oher isn't a top tackle, but the histrionics about him are getting ludicrous. He's a replacement level starter on the left side and an above average to very good right tackle. Treating him like he's a worthless turnstile is underselling his value.

The problem with Oher is his inconsistency. Go back and look at Filmstudy's grades of Oher going all the way back to his rookie season. Even at RT, he mixes in plenty of D's and F's with his A's and B's. In 2011 he was downright bad all too often even at RT (he played at a horrifying, sub-Cousins level vs the Texans in the playoffs, among other games) but looked like an All-Pro for a few games as well. It was the same story at LT in 2010 and 2012.

The ONLY time Oher was really consistent was in his rookie year at RT before Gaither's injury forced his move to LT. He was miserable at LT in that stretch of 5 or so games and I don't think his confidence has ever really fully recovered. It's all mental with Michael, IMO. He struggles physically to mirror speed rushers, but technique can counteract that; he's just never really developed technically and mentally to compensate for his physical shortcomings with his mind, he plays too tentatively in pass protection, and he's easily overwhelmed by complex blocking assignments.

After 4 years in the league I think it's unrealistic to expect those things to change significantly, but Castillo may be able to improve him somewhat. Right now, I peg Oher as firmly in the bottom third of starters at LT and right around league average at RT. Sometimes great and sometimes bad equates to average in my book.

**leachisabeast** · 03-07-2013, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

What you talkin' 'bout Willis?
He gave up 10 or 10.5 sacks an over 40 pressures. IIRC, only Arizona's pair of tackles and one other OT allowed more or graded out worse in passbl;ockign by PFF.

PFF also gave Oher a +3.7 overall grading in pass pro which isn't bad at all. I think those numbers have something to do with the TERRIBLE scheming by Cam Cameron, even offensive linemen were negatively affected by his play calling IMO.

There were times Cam would not mass protect against 6 rushers.

**BcRaven** · 03-07-2013, 10:45 AM

I think one of the problems, that posters have criticized the FO for, is not totally valid. IMO one of the reasons is that the Ravens have consistently won enough games to make the playoffs, and have a low 1st round draft choice. We won't be choosing between Joeckel, Fisher, or Johnson because they will be long gone before Ozzie has his first cup of coffee. Let's also not forget that he drafted KO (2nd) and GG (4th) in 2012, but it is one of the hardest things in the current NFL to find a solid LT.
... Bc

**Bigfish** · 03-07-2013, 11:22 AM

During the playoff run the offense played very well. Aside from the question mark at LT, we will return just about everyone. We have Reid, Harewood and Cornell as depth for the line and all of them should improve. We aren't likely to find a starting LT drafting at #32 and beyond, so it makes sense to find a FA or resign McKinney to a short contract. The Oher experiment at LT didn't work and the contrast with the line play during the regular season vs the playoffs last year is evidence. Our guard tandem could be the best in the game and sticking Gradkowski between them will help him be successful. All that is needed is to plug in a LT and we'll have a powerful offense with a great OL.

The defense played poorly for much of the year and we're losing Lewis and could eventually lose Ellerbe, Krueger, Williams, Kemo and Reed. Another question mark is McClain coming off his spinal injury. The defense needs to be retooled and IMO we'll draft heavily on that group.

**jonboy79** · 03-07-2013, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Bigfish

During the playoff run the offense played very well. Aside from the question mark at LT, we will return just about everyone. We have Reid, Harewood and Cornell as depth for the line and all of them should improve. We aren't likely to find a starting LT drafting at #32 and beyond, so it makes sense to find a FA or resign McKinney to a short contract. The Oher experiment at LT didn't work and the contrast with the line play during the regular season vs the playoffs last year is evidence. Our guard tandem could be the best in the game and sticking Gradkowski between them will help him be successful. All that is needed is to plug in a LT and we'll have a powerful offense with a great OL.

The defense played poorly for much of the year and we're losing Lewis and could eventually lose Ellerbe, Krueger, Williams, Kemo and Reed. Another question mark is McClain coming off his spinal injury. The defense needs to be retooled and IMO we'll draft heavily on that group.

agreed, outside of LT of the future, and a blocking TE/Hback type or both, this draft should be all defensive at every level... DL/LB/S though I think we are pretty well set at CB. OLB is less of a need then ILB, IMO and DE is less of a need then NT, again, IMO.

**The Excellector** · 03-07-2013, 11:46 AM

I wouldn't say the front office has an undying allegiance to Michael Oher. His struggles at LT during training camp and the preseason, played a role in Bryant McKinnie being signed by the team. When Jah Reid got hurt, they could have put Williams at LG and left Oher at LT.

It just seems that the players they've chosen to groom for the spot have not panned out. Gaither's poor work ethic led to constant injuries and constant questions. McKinnie's work ethic is the only thing that led to Oher being at LT last year.

If they do draft a LT, I would expect them to select someone with an unquestionably hard work ethic.

**Bigfish** · 03-07-2013, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

agreed, outside of LT of the future, and a blocking TE/Hback type or both, this draft should be all defensive at every level... DL/LB/S though I think we are pretty well set at CB. OLB is less of a need then ILB, IMO and DE is less of a need then NT, again, IMO.

Fixed that, but I agree with all of it.

**jonboy79** · 03-07-2013, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Bigfish

Fixed that, but I agree with all of it.

thanks, and yes that was my intent... so you corrected it correctly.

**Carey** · 03-07-2013, 12:18 PM

LT is obviously the huge elephant in the room. I think we all agree they need to re-sign Mckinnie and draft his heir apparent soon. I think the other 4 spots are locked down pretty good, Jah gives good swing depth at G and RT, especially since we already know he can at least play G at a respectable level. I could see Caldwell and Cornell competing for a spot and we'll have to find a backup for Gino. All in all i think we are in good shape, assuming LT gets handled properly.

**AirFlacco** · 03-07-2013, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by bmorecareful

I have a sneaky suspicion that we're all going to be disappointed yet again in how the FO handles the OL this offseason. I think they will allow the market to set McKinnie's price and they will have no qualms whatsoever letting him walk if his price is a penny higher than what they want to pay. That will leave us in essentially the same position we were for most of last season--which was once again a crisis of their own creation.

The Ravens are still fumbling about trying to replace Jonathan Ogden, and still following the same approach they used when JO was here. They simply do not prioritize the OL and never have. They will gladly spend draft picks on offensive linemen, but rarely first rounders (which are usually reserved for high-impact defenders). They do a good job of developing their mid-round picks for the most part but very rarely re-sign them, so they're constantly cycling through players and re-shuffling. The same is true now; they committed long-term to Yanda, but the other 4 OL positions have been continuously in flux.

I expect the Ravens to go into 2013 with Oher at LT, backed up by the developmental LT of the future. They will add an interior OL who can play guard and center to back up and "compete" with Gradkowski, who will be the starting center in between KO and Yanda. At RT, they will likely give Jah Reid one last shot to get healthy and win a starter's spot (I think he fits better at RT than LG) but he will be pushed by Jack Cornell or a cheap FA in camp.

Oher at LT is my greatest fear. I keep seeing Jack Cornell's name in this forum and how Castillo is working with him. Another thread said Bisciotti is high on him.

**Section 502 Raven** · 03-07-2013, 12:35 PM

they should draft with the intention of not renewing oher after his rookie contract runs out next year. there was talk earlier in this season about extending oher. i thought that was crazy and apparently it was a bad rumor.

i was driving one weekend and 98 rock was replaying the denver playoff game on the radio. it must have been the week before the superbowl. i heard ismail say "stay on your block 74". it was in response to a sack on joe. you don't hear players called out much but i think it is obvious to everyone about his level of play.

**lobachevsky** · 03-07-2013, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

Oher has played tackle for us on one side or the other for virtually all of Joe's career and neither has yet to miss a game, much less finish the year on IR. I get that Oher isn't a top tackle, but the histrionics about him are getting ludicrous. He's a replacement level starter on the left side and an above average to very good right tackle. Treating him like he's a worthless turnstile is underselling his value.

Another strawman argument.

FTR I agree that Oher is an above-average RT & as with McKinnie this year, I would expect him to move to starboard if&when the developmental LT cracks the lineup. I disagree that "he's a replacement level starter on the left side"--he is IMO an adequate stopgap whose presence to port will require adjustments in protection (e.g. help from a TE) &/or game-planning (e.g. faster developing pass patterns) that will keep this offense from achieving its potential.

Flacco has been amazingly resilient in his career but with Michael at LT I live in apprehension of the day he whiffs on a blitzer, Joe doesn't see him (it is, after all, the blind side) & gets clobbered in a joint- or tendon-unfriendly manner, & the next morning this board is swamped with draft & free-agency threads in mid-season.

**lobachevsky** · 03-07-2013, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Section 502 Raven

they should draft with the intention of not renewing oher after his rookie contract runs out next year.

Doubtful he'd be back in any event so long as he's convinced he's a genuine starting LT & deserves to be paid as such. The Ravens will probably offer him a contract that's upper end for a RT, but some team out there will want him to play LT & outbid them. (BTW, you ought to get those shift keys fixed.)

**ActualSpamBot** · 03-07-2013, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by lobachevsky

Another strawman argument.

I think bemoaning the inevitably of Flacco being IR'd if Oher plays LT is the real strawman, as evidenced by the fact that he's done it for us for a couple of seasons without Flacco having ever been seriously hurt outside of a hip bruise that he played through.

Originally Posted by lobachevsky

I disagree that "he's a replacement level starter on the left side"--he is IMO an adequate stopgap whose presence to port will require adjustments in protection (e.g. help from a TE) &/or game-planning

That's basically the definition of a replacement level player. A guy you can plug in and tread water with, but who you look to upgrade or scheme to help.

Originally Posted by lobachevsky

Flacco has been amazingly resilient in his career but with Michael at LT I live in apprehension of the day he whiffs on a blitzer, Joe doesn't see him (it is, after all, the blind side) & gets clobbered in a joint- or tendon-unfriendly manner, & the next morning this board is swamped with draft & free-agency threads in mid-season.

Name the realistically draftable or affordable free agent left tackle that that sentence doesn't apply to and you may have a point.

**moose10101** · 03-07-2013, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by bmorecareful

They simply do not prioritize the OL and never have. They will gladly spend draft picks on offensive linemen, but rarely first rounders

Two of the Ravens' last four 1st round picks were offensive linemen. 50% isn't high enough?

In rounds 1-3 in the past six years, 6 out of 20 have been O-linemen. That's not enough?

**Gabrosin** · 03-07-2013, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by moose10101

Two of the Ravens' last four 1st round picks were offensive linemen. 50% isn't high enough?

In rounds 1-3 in the past six years, 6 out of 20 have been O-linemen. That's not enough?

I was about to post the same thing. We've invested heavily enough in the offensive line as far as I'm concerned. It's not the FO's fault that Grubbs wanted too much money to stay, or that they hit on Yanda in the third making Grubbs expendable. It's not the FO's fault that they had to take a prospective LT with flaws like Oher because we haven't drafted in the top ten since Suggs (unless you count our trade down for Flacco, which seems to have worked out all right).

We drafted Jah Reid and Ramone Harewood and Adam Terry before them as projects that failed to pan out. We just need to keep trying. And to recognize that we could find a decent LT in free agency this year (e.g. Sam Baker) and let him man the spot for a couple years while waiting for our next OT prospect (Menelik Watson?) to mature.

It is very, very rare for any college player to be able to play LT as a rookie. Even Ogden didn't.

**leachisabeast** · 03-07-2013, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Gabrosin

I was about to post the same thing. We've invested heavily enough in the offensive line as far as I'm concerned. It's not the FO's fault that Grubbs wanted too much money to stay, or that they hit on Yanda in the third making Grubbs expendable. It's not the FO's fault that they had to take a prospective LT with flaws like Oher because we haven't drafted in the top ten since Suggs (unless you count our trade down for Flacco, which seems to have worked out all right).

We drafted Jah Reid and Ramone Harewood and Adam Terry before them as projects that failed to pan out. We just need to keep trying. And to recognize that we could find a decent LT in free agency this year (e.g. Sam Baker) and let him man the spot for a couple years while waiting for our next OT prospect (Menelik Watson?) to mature.

It is very, very rare for any college player to be able to play LT as a rookie. Even Ogden didn't.

I wouldn't say its very rare at all anymore. Both Cordy Glenn and Matt Kalil started every game at LT last season and both played well.

**bmorecareful** · 03-07-2013, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by moose10101

Two of the Ravens' last four 1st round picks were offensive linemen. 50% isn't high enough?

In rounds 1-3 in the past six years, 6 out of 20 have been O-linemen. That's not enough?

The whole story can't be told by counting the number of draft picks. The Ravens' MO on the OL over the years has been very simple: only commit to 1 elite lineman at a time, and fill in the rest with cheaper options. Used to be JO, now it's Yanda. Take college OTs and turn them into guards, take college guards and turn them into centers, and as much as possible do it in the late rounds.

The Ravens have never hesitated to let quality linemen walk in free agency, then try to fill them in with old, broken-down vets. It works sometimes (Willie Anderson, Matt Birk) and fails sometimes (Bobbie Williams) but it NEVER buys you more than a few years. Meanwhile, the "project" guys they've drafted either fail to pan out, or they DO pan out, and then the Ravens don't want to re-sign them.

I'm not putting a value judgment on the approach; obviously it's worked out very well given how successful the team has been, and there's no point in blaming them when players don't pan out. I'm just pointing out that year after year, the defense has carried the bulk of the team's cap number while other positions were addressed in more cost effective manners, the OL being one of them. Maybe it's time for that to change?

Originally Posted by Gabrosin

I was about to post the same thing. We've invested heavily enough in the offensive line as far as I'm concerned. It's not the FO's fault that Grubbs wanted too much money to stay, or that they hit on Yanda in the third making Grubbs expendable. It's not the FO's fault that they had to take a prospective LT with flaws like Oher because we haven't drafted in the top ten since Suggs (unless you count our trade down for Flacco, which seems to have worked out all right).

We drafted Jah Reid and Ramone Harewood and Adam Terry before them as projects that failed to pan out. We just need to keep trying. And to recognize that we could find a decent LT in free agency this year (e.g. Sam Baker) and let him man the spot for a couple years while waiting for our next OT prospect (Menelik Watson?) to mature.

It is very, very rare for any college player to be able to play LT as a rookie. Even Ogden didn't.

How did Yanda's emergence render Grubbs expendable? You know the Ravens play two guards at the same time every offensive play, right?

You can FEEL like the Ravens have "invested heavily in OL," but that doesn't make it true. Monetarily, they have not. The Ravens spent about $15m TOTAL on offensive line last season. Meanwhile, they spent $12m on safeties, $26m on LBs, $13.5m on DL, etc.

Overall the Ravens spent the 5th most on their defense and the 23rd most on their offense by salary cap dollars last year. They spent 30% more on defense than offense. Check the numbers at this excellent site: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/inte...rancisco-49ers

**Gabrosin** · 03-07-2013, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by bmorecareful

The whole story can't be told by counting the number of draft picks. The Ravens' MO on the OL over the years has been very simple: only commit to 1 elite lineman at a time, and fill in the rest with cheaper options. Used to be JO, now it's Yanda. Take college OTs and turn them into guards, take college guards and turn them into centers, and as much as possible do it in the late rounds.

The Ravens have never hesitated to let quality linemen walk in free agency, then try to fill them in with old, broken-down vets. It works sometimes (Willie Anderson, Matt Birk) and fails sometimes (Bobbie Williams) but it NEVER buys you more than a few years. Meanwhile, the "project" guys they've drafted either fail to pan out, or they DO pan out, and then the Ravens don't want to re-sign them.

I'm not putting a value judgment on the approach; obviously it's worked out very well given how successful the team has been, and there's no point in blaming them when players don't pan out. I'm just pointing out that year after year, the defense has carried the bulk of the team's cap number while other positions were addressed in more cost effective manners, the OL being one of them. Maybe it's time for that to change?

How did Yanda's emergence render Grubbs expendable? You know the Ravens play two guards at the same time every offensive play, right?

You can FEEL like the Ravens have "invested heavily in OL," but that doesn't make it true. Monetarily, they have not. The Ravens spent about $15m TOTAL on offensive line last season. Meanwhile, they spent $12m on safeties, $26m on LBs, $13.5m on DL, etc.

Overall the Ravens spent the 5th most on their defense and the 23rd most on their offense by salary cap dollars last year. They spent 30% more on defense than offense. Check the numbers at this excellent site: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/inte...rancisco-49ers

Sure, but it's not very cost-efficient to pay big money to two different players at guard. Guard is the dumpster bin of the offense. If a guy can't cut it at tackle, you can move him in to guard and usually do okay. You can compensate for a guard's deficiencies in a way that you just can't at tackle. And not everyone can play center, make line calls and so forth. Having one stellar guard for pulls and traps is a real asset. Having two is a luxury many teams can't afford. We can't afford it. But we got fine production out of Osemele from the second round when he moved in there.

When I say "heavily invested", I mean in terms of draft capital, not cash. It's also foolish to look at cap dollars for a single year like that. Better to average out the expected dollars over the life of each contract, rather than focus on year by year variance that can be quite high. Even still, any position where you have young talent is going to look like you're under-investing, when in reality you're just getting a steal.