NY Times: Why LTs Are Over-Rated

[Romes]

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/first-chapter-of-blindsided/

Interesting stuff. Makes one feel a bit better about not having that one LT, whose name I won't mention, around.

[casdhf]

Re: NY Times: Why LTs Are Over-Rated

"Cleveland had a similar, if not worse, situation. The metrics showedthat Mike Pucillo was one of the worst offensive linemen in the NFL
in 2005, yet he was in the lineup for ten games."

I believe him.

[Meathead]

Re: NY Times: Why LTs Are Over-Rated

great find

[RedEyE]

Re: NY Times: Why LTs Are Over-Rated

Awesome article!

He makes a great arguement and I tend to lean in his favor. Offensive lines today rely more on a balanced blocking scheme than just protecting the outside rush. This idea would also coincide with the continued increase in teams using Cover 2. Defenses are relying more and more on a short zone and attacking the line when a hole in the line appears.

However, in Lewis' defense, the RDE is generally the best pass rusher on the team. Seems to me you would want your best blocker controlling that situation.

[Ickybaluky]

Re: NY Times: Why LTs Are Over-Rated

KC Joyner is an interesting read, but those statistics don't prove anything.

If LT isn't important, why are so many consistently drafted high?

If LT isn't important, why is it the 2nd-highest paid position in the NFL, behind QB?

[RedEyE]

Re: NY Times: Why LTs Are Over-Rated

KC Joyner is an interesting read, but those statistics don't prove anything.

If LT isn't important, why are so many consistently drafted high?

If LT isn't important, why is it the 2nd-highest paid position in the NFL, behind QB?

I don't think he was saying that it never was the case, but that defenses have evolved, while the NFL ideaology of the LT increasingly grows.

I might have misinterepreted what he was saying, but I gathered his point was that building a balanced line should take presedence to over spending on a hard to find high dollar LT.

[HHURRICANE]

Re: NY Times: Why LTs Are Over-Rated

KC Joyner is an interesting read, but those statistics don't prove anything.

If LT isn't important, why are so many consistently drafted high?

If LT isn't important, why is it the 2nd-highest paid position in the NFL, behind QB?

Our fans are drinking the Ralph-aid.

If Lynch sits next year that they will find an article on how great RBs are a dime-a-dozen.

[Ickybaluky]

Re: NY Times: Why LTs Are Over-Rated

I don't think he was saying that it never was the case, but that defenses have evolved, while the NFL ideaology of the LT increasingly grows.

I might have misinterepreted what he was saying, but I gathered his point was that building a balanced line should take presedence to over spending on a hard to find high dollar LT.

However, the facts show that teams put a high priority in finding a LT. That is shown by the dollars spent signing those players and by spending high draft picks on the position.

They can say what the want, but the statistics don't show everything. The one thing we can be certain of is the people on the team value getting a top LT.

[dasaybz]

Re: NY Times: Why LTs Are Over-Rated

LT isn't important when you don't have one. When you have one, it's the most important position to have on your team.

That's just the way fans work.

[RedEyE]

Re: NY Times: Why LTs Are Over-Rated

I'd love to see more articles like this. Good stuff!

[gr8slayer]

Re: NY Times: Why LTs Are Over-Rated

The only time LT is overrated is when you have a left handed QB. Joyner is a moron.

[Saratoga Slim]

Re: NY Times: Why LTs Are Over-Rated

However, the facts show that teams put a high priority in finding a LT. That is shown by the dollars spent signing those players and by spending high draft picks on the position.

They can say what the want, but the statistics don't show everything. The one thing we can be certain of is the people on the team value getting a top LT.

The article doesn't dispute the fact that teams DO pay huge money to LTs, or that they DO place a premium on finding a good one.

What it's arguing is that the statistics suggest that teams might want to rethink that emphasis.

[Mitchy moo]

Re: NY Times: Why LTs Are Over-Rated

The only time LT is overrated is when you have a left handed QB. Joyner is a moron.

The reason LT are worth more is because there are less people that are left handed or prefer to use there weak hand to block. It's a supply and demand thing and there are alot less lefties than righties.

[Ickybaluky]

Re: NY Times: Why LTs Are Over-Rated

The article doesn't dispute the fact that teams DO pay huge money to LTs, or that they DO place a premium on finding a good one.

What it's arguing is that the statistics suggest that teams might want to rethink that emphasis.

And what I'm saying is that is ridiculous. I love statistical analysis as much as the next guy, but using statistics as an iron clad indicator of OL or DL play is silly. Heck it is pretty useless on defense as well, due to team concepts. You just can't assign stats to one position.

It is one thing with a QB, WR or RB, where the things they do are easily measured. However, you can't make a statistical analysis of OL or defense because there are too many variables (scheme, opponent scheme, etc.) to do so accurately.

[Pinkerton Security]

Re: NY Times: Why LTs Are Over-Rated

Awesome article!

He makes a great arguement and I tend to lean in his favor. Offensive lines today rely more on a balanced blocking scheme than just protecting the outside rush. This idea would also coincide with the continued increase in teams using Cover 2. Defenses are relying more and more on a short zone and attacking the line when a hole in the line appears.

However, in Lewis' defense, the RDE is generally the best pass rusher on the team. Seems to me you would want your best blocker controlling that situation.

Ya, lets ask Winston Justice and Osi Umenyiora how their little run in went last year, it shows that a stud RDE against a crappy LT can dominate the hell out of a game.