Left Tackles obsolete?

Interesting, from ESPN....


By all accounts, Eric Fisher is going to be a fine NFL player. Maybe even a great one. Scouts agree that he's a sound, steady, athletic technician with upside -- perhaps an even better prospect than offensive tackles Jake Long and Joe Thomas were coming out of college. The problem is Fisher plays a position that, in terms of importance, is in serious decline. But few seem to notice.

After Michael Lewis published "The Blind Side" in 2006, NFL analysts and fans started describing left tackle as the game's second-most important position, behind quarterback. Their reasoning was that the left tackle is the one most responsible for the quarterback's safety. It became chic to trumpet the 300-pounders as unheralded stars. It even became chic to pay them like heralded stars. This seems logical, but it fails to see the big picture of today's NFL. And once you consider this ongoing offensive evolution, it seems rather silly to take an offensive tackle at the top of Round 1.

In pro football's recent and ongoing evolution, increasingly fewer offensive concepts are heavily dependent on a left tackle being able to win on an island against a quality defensive opponent.

A lot of passing attacks these days operate primarily out of spread sets with three- and five-step drop-back timing. The objective is getting the ball out quickly to skill players in space. This naturally quells a pass rush, as it is physically impossible for an edge rusher to reach a quarterback on three-step timing and very difficult for him to get there against five-step timing. Besides, when pass-rushers do get there, good quarterbacks have learned how to compensate with pocket mobility, progression-read poise and pre-snap diagnostic skills. Many also have the athleticism to extend plays on the perimeter.

What's more, much of today's game is predicated on disguise and deception. When the offense does take a deep shot (which requires a seven-step drop), it's usually out of a running formation and involves some sort of play-action. (The key to most deep-shot designs is baiting the safety into stepping forward.) These deceptive tactics often have a tight end blocking on the edge and/or a running back staying in to protect. Which means the left tackle is usually getting help.

Receivers who can uncover quickly are more help to a QB than an LT.
The run game is changing, too. Yes, there will always be situations in football where an offense has to move the chains by ramming the ball through the A, B and C gaps. But more and more run games today are predicated on agility and deception. This is seen most starkly in the rise of toss sweeps and delay handoffs out of three- and four-receiver sets (including shotgun). And it's especially seen in the increasingly popular read-option (where the left tackle can essentially be something of a decoy, as the offense's objective is to force an unblocked edge defender into making an either/or decision on the ball). Gone are the days when left tackles have to constantly pile-drive opponents off the ball.

All of these trends point to less being demanded of left tackles. Where teams once needed a great player at the position, a lot of them now just need a player who doesn't stink.

Of course, the consequences of having a left tackle who does stink can be dire -- especially given that offense is not the only side of the ball that is evolving. Defenses today present remarkably sophisticated sub-package disguises and pass-rush designs, plus they're loaded with insanely gifted athletes, particularly on the front edges. One could maybe even argue that an elite left tackle is now vital for any offense that does not have an upper-tier quarterback. Because if the quarterback can't adjust to the defense, the offense's only prayer is with a potent front line.

But a legitimate rebuttal is that an elite left tackle is still not enough anyway. Based on the play calling we're seeing these days, most offensive coaches seem to agree. The evolution of defense has been so profound that offenses, no matter who they have up front, don't feel comfortable relying heavily on any single pass-blocker. Teams are using a lot more schematic wrinkles and group efforts to protect their quarterback. Tactics like chip-blocks, tight formations, rolled pockets and slide protections are now standard. A left tackle has little or nothing to do with combating complex defensive tactics; it's all about the quarterback's ability to make pre- and post-snap adjustments.

As with quicker, more spread-out pass plays and space-oriented running, an uptick in group-oriented blocking concepts points to less being demanded of a left tackle. Consequently, the difference between a Eric Fisher and, say, a Menelik Watson, is naturally mitigated. "Fisher with help" might dominate his opponent on a given play, while "Watson with help" might only neutralize his opponent. But what does it matter? Both produce the same result: a protected quarterback. Sure, Fisher's superiority over Watson might still shine in certain run-blocking situations. But in today's pass-happy NFL, that's not hugely valuable (as the declining market for running backs attests to).

The effects of these evolutionary changes can be seen in the makeup of the past five years' Super Bowl rosters. One of the many leaguewide trends these rosters reflect is that quarterbacks are everything while left tackles are, well, just pieces. Look at the starting quarterbacks from the past five Super Bowls: Joe Flacco, Colin Kaepernick, Tom Brady, Eli Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning and Kurt Warner.

These guys need no explanation. All are top-shelf superstars except Flacco and Kaepernick (and they both have distinct superstar traits, including maybe the most important of all: an ability to make strong-armed throws in tight windows).

Now look at the collective mediocrity of the left tackles who protected these superstars:

Bryant McKinnie, 2012, Ravens: Veteran castoff who began the season as a backup; he entered the starting lineup because of a domino effect from injuries at right tackle and guard.

Joe Staley, 2012, 49ers: An outlier, as he's the only guy on this list to make the Pro Bowl in his team's Super Bowl season.

David Diehl, 2011, Giants: A respectable veteran right tackle who moved to the left side after Will Beatty's injury.

Matt Light, 2011, Patriots: A very solid veteran but one who was beginning to wear down; Super Bowl XLII wound up being his final game.

Chad Clifton, 2010, Packers: Another solid veteran who was wearing down. Played just six games in 2011 before being out of the league.

Trai Essex, 2010, Steelers: A backup who started just three games the following season; was essentially out of the league by the end of 2012.

Jermon Bushrod, 2009, Saints: Many insiders described him as the league's worst left tackle in 2009. He would eventually develop into an adequate starter, but not until the second part of 2011. The Saints were not devastated when he signed with the Bears this past March.

Charlie Johnson, 2009, Colts: A utility player who became a guard in Minnesota.

Max Starks, 2008, Steelers: A fairly decent starter but one who could be prone to mistakes and bad weight gain.

Mike Gandy, 2008, Cardinals: Went on IR in the middle of 2009 with a pelvic/groin injury; was released after the season (at age 30) and never played again.

Obviously there are a lot of factors besides elite quarterback play that propel a team to the Super Bowl. But elite left tackle play does not appear to be one of them.

Over the past five years, the NFL's marquee left tackles have been Thomas, Long, Ryan Clady, Michael Roos, Jason Peters and Jordan Gross. How successful have the Browns, Dolphins, pre-Manning Broncos, Titans, Eagles and Panthers been in that span? Their collective record in games that these left tackles started is 210-232.

Maybe it is unfair to tie a team's wins and losses to a left tackle -- but that's the point. If there is little correlation between quality left tackle play and winning, why are left tackles still considered premium assets? By its very nature, the position is forever mundane, not dynamic. Its function is to allow for big offensive plays and prevent big defensive plays. Unlike quarterback, receiver, running back, defensive line and linebacker, the left tackle position cannot create big plays. You cannot craft your team's identity around a left tackle. So why take one at the very top of the first round?

Theoretically, what presents more opportunity to help your quarterback in today's quick-passing, space-oriented NFL? Drafting a left tackle high in the first round, or trading down and drafting, say, two receivers who can win off the line of scrimmage and make plays in space? Think of it this way: In an honest moment, who would Tom Brady admit he could least afford to lose, Nate Solder or Aaron Hernandez? It's not even a question; Solder is good, but Hernandez is critical to New England's identity.

Perhaps a more pertinent example is Andy Dalton and the Bengals. Being an average pocket passer with average raw tools, Dalton is exactly the type of quarterback who needs good protection. And he gets that, as eighth-year veteran Andrew Whitworth has blossomed into one of the league's better left tackles. And yet, no intelligent football observer would say Whitworth is more valuable to the Bengals than A.J. Green.

Not every team has a talent like Green. But when you're drafting near the very top of the first round, that's what you're trying to find. Superstars. Building blocks. Guys who define your team. You're not looking for really good cogs (which is what left tackles are becoming). Those are found in the bottom of the first round or in the later rounds, not with the No. 1 pick.

 

I've always considered it an important but extremely overrated position. There a good point in there about how some very good LTs have been stuck on bad teams. I don't know about "obsolete", though. A really bad player there can kill you.

 

Interesting, but I'd say it misses the mark in several key areas. First, contrary to what was claimed, LTs almost never get help with their assignment. If a TE stays in or a RB chips a defender, it's almost always to assist the RT. Secondly, last season was the first time since 2003 that a strongside defender led the NFL in sacks, but even in 2012 ten of the sixteen players who had 11 or more sacks were defenders who match up against the LT. Thirdly, most QBs are still right-handed which means that it's easier for them to recognize and adjust to pressure from anywhere but that LT area. And lastly, contrary to what was claimed about the increasing use of spread sets and deception, the number of sacks has been on a slight but steady increase over the last five years.

The one good point that the column makes is that sacks aren't the end of the world, but the piece is still pretty bad overall. How can the author not mention that McKinnie had been an elite left tackle and is still quite good, but was benched during the season due to the Ravens being unhappy about his weight? And Chad Clifton retired due to injuries, not ineffectiveness. If I recall correctly, Max Starks moved to left tackle for the Steelers late in the season due to an injury. Any fan can see the importance of the offensive line when a QB is under siege (Chicago, for instance), but it is fair to say that the QB himself has as much to do with the number of sacks as the OL itself.

So is left tackle the second most important position behind quarterback? Obviously not. Yet it's far more important than the author tries to claim. OL give receivers more time to get open, give you balance as an offense, and give your QB the best chance of staying healthy. It's pretty important.

 

Seems the changes in play calling are a result of teams not having enough elite LTs more than that they aren't that important.

Also look at those SB participants he listed almost all them have recently used a high pick to replace said meh tackles.

 

pretty much.
Its unfair to pin the records all on LTS which he mentions them promptly ignores is it Joe Thomas' fault the browns suck at roster assembly and he's on what his fourth head coach?
For more on the third point see Phillip rivers.


Another thing I just realized... all those young hyped qbs have highly drafted LTs except for Luck.

 

I think it's kind of funny how Michael Oher has been cucked to the right side.

 

I would agree with the author's point that having an elite receiver on the field has much more impact than having an elite LT.

 

This was the main point I took away. You can get by with a JAG LT if you have a good QB and great WR.

 

You don't need a great car to get laid, but it's hard to get laid with a shitty car.