Thoughts on the Offensive Line
Why i favor a Left Tackle in the Draft
I think the Broncos have been making do with less at Tackle for a lot of years now, but really, the paradigm has shifted to this being a Cutler-centric team. While it is true that we've often gotten by with lesser talents on the OL, remember that the two Super Bowls were won with Gary Zimmerman and Tony Jones (A Hall of Famer and a near Pro Bowl-caliber pass-blocker, respectively) at LT.
I have love and appreciation for Matt Lepsis, but he had a terrible year in 2007, by his own admission. I think he was an A- Right Tackle, and a B- Left Tackle, at his best. He was always a very good run-blocker, and a somewhat marginal pass-blocker. Erik Pears, in my opinion, is really not a starting-caliber Tackle in the NFL, as much as we may like underdog stories. If you watch the line play over the last two seasons, you can routinely see Pears getting dominated. He was better on the right than he was on the left side, (where he was a disaster,) but he really should be a third tackle, not a starter.
I hope that Ryan Harris develops into a good starter, but I'm frankly not really terribly encouraged, based upon Mike Shanahan's reticence to praise his development. The whispers on Harris coming out of Notre Dame was that he lacked love for playing football, despite his clear athletic talent for the game. I'm hoping for the best, but we'll see how that goes.
Regarding Chris Kuper, I am a fan of his. I thought he was the best OL on the team last season once he got his bearings as a starter. I don't know if we have any basketball fans here, but to borrow a baskteball term, I think Chris lacks the length to be as effective at tackle as he is inside. Remember, it's a pretty rare case where everybody just misses on a player in the Draft (TD, Tom Brady.) Much more often than not, a successful late-round pick is a guy who really does have some correctly evaluated limitations, and manages to overcome them, or minimize the negative effects of them.
To set the stage, I think we had a C- Offensive Line, as of the end of last season. Assuming Tom Nalen and Ben Hamilton both make it back and play to the high levels they've played at in the recent past, the capability is there for more like a B-. Let's assume the best, and name them starters at Center and Left Guard. At Right Guard, Montrae Holland did a pretty nice job last season, and should be a favorite to keep his spot. Casey Wiegmann will be the primary backup inside, with Kuper in the mix there also.
At Tackle, we can play Kuper or possibly Harris at LT, but I don't think either is a great idea. Pears should be (and seems to be) out of the question on the left side. For now, let's go with what Shanahan indicated he was looking at at the owners' meetings, and put Kuper at LT, and leave Pears at RT.
From Left to Right, that's Kuper, Hamilton, Nalen, Holland, and Pears. There's your B-. If Kuper does better than I expect, and/or Harris beats out Pears and holds his own, it becomes a B. We're now back to the quality of OL we were making the playoffs with, earlier in this decade, and maybe that's OK. In this best-case scenario world, I'm OK with drafting Devin Thomas or Rashard Mendenhall, or trading down a few spots for DeSean Jackson. We can definitely use a playmaker on offense.
My preference, however, is taking the best OL available at #12. Living in Cleveland, I watched Joe Thomas and Eric Steinbach transform the Browns' offense last season. Derek Anderson got a lot of credit, but his left side kept him very clean, and it was key to all of their success on Offense. I think it would be better to move Kuper to RT, and play the draftee on the Left side right away.
Now, here's the thing. I know good offensive line play when I see it, and I've watched the Broncos closely enough to have a solid feel for where quality is and isn't, among our holdover players. I can't say the same thing for the draft-eligible guys, however. I've seen Jake Long the most, but he'll be long gone. Between Ryan Clady, Jeff Otah, Branden Albert, Chris Williams, and Sam Baker, I'm not really qualified to evaluate them. Whoever is deemed to be the best among them will be agreeable to me. I really believe that a commitment to better pass protection is vitally important though, and the protection over the last 4 games of last season was the worst I have seen from a Denver line since Mike Shanahan became the Head Coach.
To finish up, a quick point about not taking the wrong lesson from George Foster's not working out. I work as a financial analyst, but even a math novice can understand that a sample size of 1 is not particularly predictive of anything. "Missing" on the only lineman you ever took in Round 1, (and Foster is much closer to a simply average player than he is to a bust,) doesn't mean you'll miss on all of them. On a league-wide basis, OT is considered to be one of the most easily projectable positions, and it's really a shock when a Tony Mandarich or Robert Gallery fails to live up to expectations. There is generally a high success rate with taking first round Offensive Linemen, and being successful with it strongly correlates to competing for Super Bowl Championships.
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
0 recs |
10 comments
Comments
Great Work
by Jon Tollerud on Apr 11, 2008 11:26 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Excellent Post
by firstfan on Apr 11, 2008 12:51 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Nice post
by MattR on Apr 11, 2008 2:59 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
That's an excellent point Matt,
by Steve Nichols on Apr 11, 2008 5:06 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent work Ted!
I differ a little on some of the player evaluations, but my background is entirely defense so I have little room to comment there. I do feel strongly though that the strength of Denver's line has traditionaly been run blocking, and zone blocking in particular. I care little for where an offensive lineman is drafted (in terms of how high) so much as I care that the player has the right skill set to zone block. FOr this reason I am ok with drafting low or mid round as long as the player fits our system.
I agree that we shouldn't shy away from a high pick for OL because Foster was a bust. I was of the opinion at the time that Foster just wasn't a good fit for the team regardless of how high or ow he was taken.
I believe that a great OL can be taken low or high, but the key isn't how good of a player he is, but whether or not he fits the scheme. Even though LT is more often a pass block position, it is still a crucial position for blocks at the second level in our zone block scheme. (The RB often starts to the strong side, but cuts back towards the center of the field. With the line moving to the right, the second level blocking in the center of the field is typicaly handled by the LG and LT).
Again, great work and a great read!
by Steve Nichols on Apr 11, 2008 5:18 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
While we were still in the throes
The season ending analysis based on the data compiled by the NPLB concluded with essentially all the points you are making here:
- Lepsis was our best runblocker and worst pass blocker. As a standard denver zoneblocker he basically was par in runblocking and a failure as the guardian angel for Cutler.
- Pears was the weakest overall link in the chain, and what success was found on the right side came from the fact that Holland and Graham blocked strongside all game, even to the extent that Graham was given very little chance to be the receiving threat that Denver promised him he could be, and Kuper pulling from his LG spot.
- Kuper is an excellent young talent on this line, especially seeing as his natural position is RG, and he still filled in admirably at LG. Not the leap that RT to LT is, but not the simplest thing in the world either.
- Injuries and reorganization of the line drastically reduced our overall effectiveness as well.
Moving on to Harris, he has NEVER PROVEN ANYTHING. Not at Notre Dame not in Denver. He has all the tools. But even if Kuper was a flop, Harris would STILL be listed behind him on the depth chart, because he hasn't done anything, which in my mind, puts him a step behind Pears, even. HE MUST BE CHALLENGED APPROPRIATELY.
Kuper deserves a shot to find a place on this line to be a starter. Shanahan lists him as the early starter, and rightly so. Kuper has proven he belongs on this line. But his 'sweet spot' is covered with guys who have proven even more than he has, so he will compete with EVERYBODY, starting with the tackles, who need to be challenged, but throwing a Guard into the mix isn't the appropriate way to challenge the future bookends, and protectors of Jay Cutler, it is only a way to give Kuper a fair chance at his due rewards.
I will admit that I have been playing Devil's advocate to the drafting of Chris Williams. Analysis alone convinced me that Clady wasn't fit to be a Denver Bronco, but I can't shake Williams appropriateness. The last thread I am hanging onto is that Denver has earned very few things in the draft, but one of them is the benefit of the doubt in regards to late round Oline picks. This thread didn't have much chance of lasting, since it doesn't explicitly rule out early picks on olinemen.
Thanks to Ted for this diary, and for taking me for a spin in the timemachine to last season. In my mind, the final piece is in place to advocate taking Chris Williams, even at #12. Of all the lineman mentioned above, Williams is the hands down best Tackle in the draft for Denver.
I will soon have my notes up in a front page story about Chris Williams. A part of me is sad about that, when I look at some of the offensive weapons out there that cutler could be handing off to or throwing to, but it is only a small part. Cutler will hand off to a lot of backs, and throw to a lot of receivers in his career as a Bronco. Lets hope he is lucky enough to only need one guardian angel.
by Jeremy Bolander on Apr 11, 2008 9:54 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
If we take Williams....
I have a hard time believing that we took a decent pick like Harris and heard him being talked up over the last year without him showing something in camp or at practices. I agree that Pears has shown improvement (even while doing tasks he wasn't brought here for). I also agree that Kuper has a bright future.
But I also think that Myers proved a lot in a position he wasn't brought here for, and had a lot of versatility.
Kuper, Holland and Hamilton are proven at the guard position and I think they should stay there. Nalen and Wiegmann are at center and rightly so. This leaves us with Pears and Harris at tackle, and we would need another tackle or two to compete for starter or to provide depth.
By moving Kuper to tackle we now have only two starters at guard (with no depth), and have to draft a guard instead of a tackle (if I'm reading this situation right).
So if we have Kuper at tackle, don't we need to shelve the Williams idea and try to find a guard? I might be missing something, but it seems to me that moving Kuper to OT requires us to look for a guard in the draft, and not the tackles that we've been discussing.
What do you think?
by Steve Nichols on Apr 12, 2008 8:41 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno where i posted this but
by Jon Tollerud on Apr 12, 2008 9:29 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that may be the best way to go.
Then (assuming we've traded down for a total of about 10 picks) use the other 4 picks on any combination of RB, P/K, SAF, and perhaps give up a pick for a slightly higher pick next year.
It won't go that way, since so much is dependent on what is available and what we can trade. But I would love:
2 DT
2 WR
2 OL
1 RB
1 SAF
1 K or P
1 pick traded to get a pick next year.
by Steve Nichols on Apr 12, 2008 10:01 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
My List
2 WR
2 DT
2 OL
1 DB/CB
1 LB
1 K/P
and if it really came down to it I have faith in our current legs so I would say 2 DB/CB over the K/P
by Jon Tollerud on Apr 12, 2008 10:34 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our biggest difference...
My thinking is that we are ok with Young and Hall as speedy RBs (though they don't have the endurance to be on the field much). Our running game is predicated on having a workhorse, power, bruising RB (like Henry) to beat on the defense play after play, followed by a speed runner or a pass play. The catch is whether or not Henry is going to be ok.
I'm Henry's biggest advocate, but Shanny did mention that Henry might not be in the best shape (I'm hoping that was just motivational talk). Even if Henry is 100%, we need a simular style back in case Henry gets hurt.
But your point on a DB is well taken. I too listed a SAF (because we have stop-gaps right now). And if you go CB the justification is that we are going to be in trouble without staggered contracts at CB in a couple of years.
I'm assuming that staggering is the reason behind your pick at LB too. I respect your list, and would be happpy if Denver went either way.
by Steve Nichols on Apr 12, 2008 11:27 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 

























