Good Analysis from the Trib

[Mongo3451]

Thought I'd throw this out there. It really struck an important tone in the importance of picking OL.

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...,7056029.column

[NeoBear]

Good find Mongo.

[Pixote]

Very interesting article. 90% success rate for first round OL selections over the last decade. Amazing statistic!

[azbearsfan]

lol

 

Don't confuse the situation with facts and numbers.

 

I learned from reading the board that if we ignore OL until the fourth round and sign linemen that can't hack it on other teams we will have the best offense in the world and make it to the super bowl again.

 

Mwahahahahahahahaha

 

Seriously though, good read.

[nfoligno]

I read that piece last night and thought it was awesome. It hit on an area I had not considered. Many have talked about picks like Gallary being total busts, but the article puts a different spin on it. Gallary is a bust in the sense he never lived up to the hype, but at the same time, he is today a solid starter on the OL. Not at LT, where he was drafted and expected to play, but inside. The team didn't get the value out of him they hoped for, but he is not close to being a bust that a QB, RB or WR would be if they were not able to hack it.

 

That is one reason why I love the idea of drafting Albert. He has the potential to play LT, which is a huge need for us and, if that happened, would w/o question make him an awesome value at 14. But IMHO, if he can't play LT, he could still be a pro bowl level OG. Some would argue that is not worth the 14th pick, but I would argue that point myself.

 

Otah is considered to have the potential to play LT also, but if not, is also considered to be a potential pro bowler at RT or OG.

 

So while the ceiling on several of these OL is high (potential LT) the floor is far lower than the skill position players.

 

One point I would sort of argue w/ the article. The piece talks about how not as many OL drafted become pro bowlers. One argument I would make on this point is that pro bowl OL often sit on that roster a long time, making it more difficult for new talent to take the spot. At QB, RB and WR, you have far more pro bowl roster turnover than on the OL, where a stud may be the starter on the pro bowl for a decade. So if you draft an OL, he very well may be a pro bowl level player, but that doesn't mean he will be on the pro bowl. I think this is about turnover on the pro bowl roster as much as it is new talent being pro bowl level.

 

Also, I think it is harder for the new OL talent to break into that roster. It is harder becuase you don't have stats to really go off of. If a RB breaks onto the scene and puts up 1,500 yards, he is likely to get tons of votes to be on the pro bowl. At OL, often players who were there last year just get re-voted on. W/o the stats, fans (and often players who have not played agains that team) have no idea a new player has stepped up. Absent stats, I think many just vote on reputations, which are harder to earn than simply putting up great stats one year.

[madlithuanian]

Good read! Thanks for the post!

 

(I still want Mendenhall...I think he's ALL vs nothing!)

 

Thought I'd throw this out there. It really struck an important tone in the importance of picking OL.

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...,7056029.column