Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)

[-Om-]

Meat and potatoes time.

Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)
Dec. 10, 2008

I have been beating the drum recently about the woeful state of the Washington Redskins offensive and defensive lines.

More specifically, I have taken the front office to task over what I believe is the complete and ultimately disastrous failure to establish a functional pipeline of qualified young linemen to replace their rapidly aging (and based on the evidence in 2008, no longer adequate) starting corps.

Rather than basing that criticism solely on what I see with my own two eyes on game days, I have begun to research the nuts and bolts of how the Redskins have gone about constructing their lines over the past decade and how they arrived where they are today.

Over the coming days and weeks I will be posting the results of that research for reference, discussion and, depending on what we find, perhaps drawing supported conclusions as to whether the Redskins' current struggles to compete with solid opponents at the line of scrimmage are the result of a fundamentally flawed approach, or simply the vagaries of trying to stay competitive in the 21st century NFL.

Let's get to it.

To begin, I broke down the Redskins' college drafts over the past ten years. I limited it to ten years on the premise that beyond that period of time, the data has increasingly little practical relevance to the present, given the number of major external factors (ownership changes, front office changes, coaching changes, player aging and injury, etc.) that come into play.

Here are the raw numbers, broken down by year, total picks, number of linemen selected, player and round selected ...

CLICK HERE to read more

[GTripp0012]

Good analysis, Om. Really waiting impatiently for part two.

[SmootSmack]

Good work Om. The Redskins have definitely put more emphasis on addressing the lines through free agents

[redsk1]

As the OBC would say, "not to guuud."

[sportscurmudgeon]

What I'd really like to see is some evidence that the scouting department and the draft board constructors are focusing entirely on OL and DL this year for the first 5 rounds.

Hopefully, they won't take another TE with their first pick - - which could be in the third round if they use the first round pick as a way to make a trade for a FA ...

[53Fan]

Great, great work Om! I am amazed by the number of lineman we drafted in the first 3 rounds compared to our NFC East rivals. That pretty much tells the story doesn't it? EXCELLENT WORK!!! Looking forward to your next post.

[A10sROCK]

Great analysis. Our key NFC Beast opponents are drafting more overall picks AND using their highest draft options for the OL and DL. That's the how you get the best players and also depth for this critical area.

This correlates to the overall win/loss record for these same years for our opponents.

I hope that Vinny Cerratto changes our draft strategy this off-season. I'd love to have a monster pass rush DL rookie that we can watch for the next 5-10 years. Instead of hiring old, super-expensive DL players who have just 2 drops of gas left in their tanks.

[-Om-]

What's struck me as much as anything is not just the number of picks used on linemen as compared to our division rivals, but the lack of high picks spent on the lines.

Since taking Samuels with the #3 overall in 2000, the Redskins have used a grand total of two picks higher than the 5th round on linemen--a 3rd for Dockery in '03, and a 3rd for Rinehard in '08.

It goes deeper. 11 of the 16 picks they have used on linemen over the past ten years have come in the 4th, 5th and 6th rounds. And 8 of those 11 have come in the 5th and 6th.

To me it speaks either of a bordeline arrogant belief that one can build legitimate starting-caliber NFL lines almost exclusively with late-round draft picks, or the belief that starters are better acquired through free agency. Either way ... it ain't working.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by -Om-

What's struck me as much as anything is not just the number of picks used on linemen as compared to our division rivals, but the lack of high picks spent on the lines.

Since taking Samuels with the #3 overall in 2000, the Redskins have used a grand total of two picks higher than the 5th round on linemen--a 3rd for Dockery in '03, and a 3rd for Rinehard in '08.

It goes deeper. 11 of the 16 picks they have used on linemen over the past ten years have come in the 4th, 5th and 6th rounds. And 8 of those 11 have come in the 5th and 6th.

To me it speaks either of a bordeline arrogant belief that one can build legitimate starting-caliber NFL lines almost exclusively with late-round draft picks, or the belief that starters are better acquired through free agency. Either way ... it ain't working.

But it's not all that unlike how we built our Super Bowl teams in the 80s. What I'd be really interested in though is how Cerrato drafted when he was the 49ers

[MTK]

I don't think it's arrogant at all to believe you can build solid lines with later round picks and FA's. Tons of quality lineman come in rounds 3 and beyond.

[redsk1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

But it's not all that unlike how we built our Super Bowl teams in the 80s. What I'd be really interested in though is how Cerrato drafted when he was the 49ers

It was a different time back then. I don't think you can make the comparison to today.

The level of athlete is much different, the level of scouting is higher i would believe and the ferocity in which the game is played is much different. I would guess that the NFL is a much younger league than it was back then. Back in the 80's, you might be able to build a team of "older guys." Now, in many positions the older guys have been beaten down so much it makes it difficult.

It would be an interesting comparison if we had the data.

[-Om-]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

But it's not all that unlike how we built our Super Bowl teams in the 80s. What I'd be really interested in though is how Cerrato drafted when he was the 49ers

Two thoughts.

1) The Redskins had The Hogs, and to somewhat lesser extent the DL, put together very early in Gibbs I. Bostic was a FA in ‘80, Jacoby a UDFA defensive player in '81 that Buges converted, and they drafted Grimm and May in rounds 1 and 2 in ‘81. By the way, also in that draft: 1st round, Mark May. 2nd round, Russ Grim. 4th round, Dexter Manley. 8th round, Darryl Grant. 12th round, Clint Didier. It helps to have a Bobby Beathard around.

Point being, by combining high picks and great eye for late-round and undrafted talent, they built the foundation of their lines early on and had the luxury of picking their spots in subsequent years. Over the past 10 years, Skins have done neither--they haven’t invested in the top end, and they have missed repeatedly on the low, leaving us where we are today.

2) There’s a thread on ES that tracked his SF moves. I’ll link it here shortly.

Edit: here ya go. You may find it very interesting.

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I don't think it's arrogant at all to believe you can build solid lines with later round picks and FA's. Tons of quality lineman come in rounds 3 and beyond.

I do. Particularly when you use literally NO higher picks in conjuction. Low-rouders that “hit” are out there, but far fewer than there are high-rounders who become stalwarts. That’s mostly opinion at this point, but my strong sense based on the research I've done so far is that the facts back it up pretty clearly.

The Redskins have gambled, and lost, on using late-rounders (talking 6ths and 7ths here, which represent exactly half of the picks they have used on the lines in the last ten years) to build a base of young guys to have ready to step in when the crop of older FA’s, and the last two high picks they did use–Samuels and Jansen–finally hit the wall. That and a shotgun approach to bringing in journeyman and undrafted FA’s by the busload hoping to find someone who can play.

I’ll stop short of saying it can’t work that way, but I’m 100% comfortable saying it hasn’t–not here. And when I look at the other division teams that do take the lines seriously enough to invest high-rounders in dominate us up front, I’m comfortable enough to hang it all out there like I am with this series.

[BigRedskinDaddy]

Hello, brother. Fancy meeting you here. Nice work as usual. I too would like to see what else you bring forth on this subject.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by redsk1

It was a different time back then. I don't think you can make the comparison to today.

The level of athlete is much different, the level of scouting is higher i would believe and the ferocity in which the game is played is much different. I would guess that the NFL is a much younger league than it was back then. Back in the 80's, you might be able to build a team of "older guys." Now, in many positions the older guys have been beaten down so much it makes it difficult.

It would be an interesting comparison if we had the data.

Definitely agree it was a different time. For one thing, back then we probably would have been less likely to be able to make a move for Andre Carter for example. For another, when we draft a guy like Derrick Dockery we'd probably have him here for the long term.

My point was only that in those days a lot of the key linemen (offense and defense) that led us to Super Bowl titles were late draft picks of ours (and other teams), so it's not entirely unreasonable to think that some of our mid to late round picks could be key for us.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Matty:

If you are right - that you can indeed build a solid OL and DL with low round picks and undrafted free agents - then the results for the Skins from 2000 - 2008 indicate that the scouting department has been waaay off in terms of what "diamonds in the rough" they should take or that the coaching staff has not done very much with the "diamonds in the rough" they were handed.

I think it is the scouting department/draft board builders - - but It could be the coaches too...