Offensive depth chart -- down in the trenches

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,400
Philly
I don't love free agency for the trenches so I did a mock:

I scored a future 1 and a future 4. Is that realistic? Well, it's possible if someone wants a QB, yes.

My guess is the unrealistic part of this is that Conerly is available at 38. I think he could go top 10-15. He is currently my OT1. I see Aireontae as either our RT (hopefully) or an LG. Ratledge is either an LG or RG. I also took a flyer on a center. What I love about this mock is it builds from the trenches. It gives us the best complete edge in the draft (I am very high on Carter) and hopefully lets us have a line of:

Conerly - Ratledge/Ersery - Strange/FA/Andrews/Mays - Onwenu - Ersery/Wallace

You now have potentially 7-8 very solid offensive linemen. I have absolutely no faith in Robinson or Sow. I have little faith in Strange or Andrews or Mays but luckily upgrading center is one of the easiest things to do on the OL. If you fix the OL you can do so much more...

Is this overkill? Yeah sure maybe. But these are some good fits and mock drafts are really just food for thought, not gospel. Here are some prospects that should interest you all.


93725
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,400
Philly
What do you like about the Oregon WR and do you have an opinion on the other, slighter Oregon WR?
My slack buddies like him. I haven’t looked yet in depth but the clips I’ve seen are exciting (I like his traits). I am in the middle of offensive lineman draft review. It’s not a great class. If you don’t mind though let’s keep this to just the OL in the mock. I’ll start posting more about other positions in a bit.

Why do you think PFF graded your selection of Conerly at #38 an F?
Just ignore their grades. They had Darnell Wright at like 178 for ages. They are slow to adjust to talent. No idea. (Their draft evaluators are honestly terrible).
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,400
Philly
Another guy to think about is Mizzou’s RT: Armand Membou. He’s a lot like Conerly but a year younger and a little less refined in pass pro. He’s also an inch shorter. He is a perfect scheme fit and can play OT or OG. I finished his tape last night. He is my current OT2. He and Conerly are both very young (he has grown ass man strength at only 20! He won’t be 21 until days before the draft).

The issue with this class is the lack of top end talent and the amount of depth at positions like WR and OL. Luckily for the Pats there are a handful of guys that are tailor-made for their offense!

Side note: be careful using the AI summary for information on draft prospects. Last year I had Tyler Guyton as a 7.75 in part because I thought his tape was from his age 20/21 season. Turns out he was 22/23. Had I know that I would have had him graded lower.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
38,996
My slack buddies like him. I haven’t looked yet in depth but the clips I’ve seen are exciting (I like his traits). I am in the middle of offensive lineman draft review. It’s not a great class. If you don’t mind though let’s keep this to just the OL in the mock. I’ll start posting more about other positions in a bit.



Just ignore their grades. They had Darnell Wright at like 178 for ages. They are slow to adjust to talent. No idea. (Their draft evaluators are honestly terrible).
I think Sikkema is pretty decent, but their mock draft is not updated very often until late and he isn't involved in the grading part I think. Like if you watch him on his show with Connor Rodgers they always joke because they get terrible grades on their drafts, and Trevor usually explains that the simulator isn't up to date. I think they focus on adding draftable players first, then actually drill down on rankings in the spring. I know he's pretty high on Connorly and said he expects him to go late 1st, maybe early 2nd.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,400
Philly
I think Sikkema is pretty decent, but their mock draft is not updated very often until late and he isn't involved in the grading part I think. Like if you watch him on his show with Connor Rodgers they always joke because they get terrible grades on their drafts, and Trevor usually explains that the simulator isn't up to date. I think they focus on adding draftable players first, then actually drill down on rankings in the spring. I know he's pretty high on Connorly and said he expects him to go late 1st, maybe early 2nd.
I want to like him but, and I know this sounds mean-spirited and out of character for me, I just find him not very bright. I feel tremendously guilty saying that. But that’s the honest truth. He is a nice guy and I love his cheery disposition and sense of humor. I would definitely grab a non-alcoholic beer with him and watch a game or two or three. I wouldn’t take his advice on anything. I loved Renner though when he was there.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
38,996
So one of the few positives in the LAC game.... Strange was healthy enough to play the whole game at C, he also looked pretty decent (at least in pass pro) and seemed to have no real problems with snapping. Strange being healthy and productive going into next year would be huge.
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Moderator
SoSH Member
Mar 19, 2004
15,676
Missoula, MT
So one of the few positives in the LAC game.... Strange was healthy enough to play the whole game at C, he also looked pretty decent (at least in pass pro) and seemed to have no real problems with snapping. Strange being healthy and productive going into next year would be huge.
Honestly, the interior line looked decent with Strange in there, and that is similar to the last few years when he was healthy. The issues were the same as they always were, Jacobs and Lowe. Then again, Mack and Bosa give everyone nightmares. Thankfully, neither of those two OT will be here next year.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
38,996
Honestly, the interior line looked decent with Strange in there, and that is similar to the last few years when he was healthy. The issues were the same as they always were, Jacobs and Lowe. Then again, Mack and Bosa give everyone nightmares. Thankfully, neither of those two OT will be here next year.
I expect Lowe to be here, hopefully not starting, but he's under contract for $1.1M, he's easily worth that as a backup OT.
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Moderator
SoSH Member
Mar 19, 2004
15,676
Missoula, MT
I don't think he is worth even that, he's been that bad. I'd see what Wallace and Robinson have as potential backups, and use FA and the draft to get at least 4 more OL.
 

Eric Fernsten's Disco Mustache

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
The issues were the same as they always were, Jacobs and Lowe.

I'm curious how others see this, because I don't see myself as some sort of expert on offensive line play

That said, my impression of the state of the line coming down the home stretch of the season is something like...

The good
  • RG - Onwenu has been solid most of the year and on a better team hopefully regains his impact in the run game
  • C - Like cellar says, I was encouraged by Strange's first game back. Small sample size, yadda yadda, but it would be nice if we had one less position we needed to use a late round pick on
The meh
  • LT - Lowe is something like bottom 20% in the league as a starting T, which is fine as your first T off the bench; but not someone you want playing ~800 snaps at LT if you can help it
The ugly
  • LG - Young Layden is getting force-fed snaps, and it ain't been pretty so far. At the beginning of the year he looked decent in the running game and struggled against the pass. Now he ain't looking great at either. Is his nursing some injuries?
  • RT - 'Trey Jacobs just ain't an NFL player, and is almost certainly worse than a bunch of tackles sitting on the benches of better teams

Going forward...
  • I'm taking it as a good sign for the guy's health that Caedan Wallace got ~15 naps at RT last weekend. If he can't leapfrog Jacobs in the depth chart pretty quickly it suggests his future is pretty grim
  • I'm not sure there's a great LT solution in the draft, so I'd be throwing free agent money around (again) to try and address that
  • If we end up using a first or second round pick on someone with clear tackle tools/physique (Simmons, Conerly) then I'd pencil them in at RT for next year. If we take one of the many college tackles who may end up inside as pros (Campbell, Milum) then I'd pencil them in at LG
To that last, SMU would make the case-- persuasively-- that iOL is poor value for a high 1st or 2nd round pick. And he ain't wrong.
 
Last edited:

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Seems to me that the best case outlook for next year looks like this:
LT -- free agent signing: Ronnie Stanley (BAL) or Cam Robinson (MIN).
LG -- maybe a cheap vet signing (Bekton? Zeitler?) to allow time to groom a rookie or one of they current OGs on the roster (Sow, Robinson, et al).
C -- a healthy Strange? A healthy DAndrews?
RG -- a rejuvenated Onwenu, left to focus on his best position.
RT -- Wallace

Bench:
Lowe, Robinson, Sow, a mid round rookie
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
18,586
Seems to me that the best case outlook for next year looks like this:
LT -- free agent signing: Ronnie Stanley (BAL) or Cam Robinson (MIN).
LG -- maybe a cheap vet signing (Bekton? Zeitler?) to allow time to groom a rookie or one of they current OGs on the roster (Sow, Robinson, et al).
C -- a healthy Strange? A healthy DAndrews?
RG -- a rejuvenated Onwenu, left to focus on his best position.
RT -- Wallace

Bench:
Lowe, Robinson, Sow, a mid round rookie
Signing someone like Stanley lets you focus improving either the WR position or Pass rush in the draft hopefully via a trade down which will help acquire more draft capital. He would be a day one target for me in free agency if he gets there and I’m over paying for him to solve that position in the short term.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Signing someone like Stanley lets you focus improving either the WR position or Pass rush in the draft hopefully via a trade down which will help acquire more draft capital. He would be a day one target for me in free agency if he gets there and I’m over paying for him to solve that position in the short term.
I agree 100% and that was part of my thinking even though I didn't mention it.
 

Eric Fernsten's Disco Mustache

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Seems to me that the best case outlook for next year looks like this:

LT -- free agent signing: Ronnie Stanley (BAL) or Cam Robinson (MIN).
LG -- maybe a cheap vet signing (Bekton? Zeitler?) to allow time to groom a rookie or one of they current OGs on the roster (Sow, Robinson, et al).
C -- a healthy Strange? A healthy DAndrews?
RG -- a rejuvenated Onwenu, left to focus on his best position.
RT -- Wallace

Bench:
Lowe, Robinson, Sow, a mid round rookie
Re: the bolded parts...

In the spirit of seeing glasses as half-full I'll interpret Caedan Wallace at RT and Sow/Robinson at LG is a "best case outlook" in the scenario where we see a real big leap from two of those three names.

Taking a half-step back, to repeat some stuff that @SMU_Sox probably wrote up somewhere around here last spring...

Caedan Wallace was a four-star recruit out of high school who started ~40 games at RT for Penn State. He was projected by most folks as a late-round developmental project b/c while he had 'enough' athleticism to play tackle in the NFL, he was consistently inconsistent (if you will) in his technique, in ways that meant he got too-often beat by guys with NFL Edge speed. (Some scouts thought he'd have a brighter future as an iOL in the NFL, where he wouldn't be as vulnerable to this). Part of the reason I flagged the 40 games thing, is that if someone is inconsistent early in their college career and then gets better, it's easier to look past where they started. When someone is inconsistent but hasn't played much in their projected NFL role (e.g. Abdul Carter this year), it's easier to speculate that they might get better with time. But Wallace had a lot of time to show that he could consistently play with good technique, and didn't. Which makes most scouts a lot more skeptical. Since then he came to New England, got injured, and missed most of the season.

Layden Robinson was also projected as a late-round flyer because his play in college revealed real flaws. He didn't start much until his last two years at Texas A&M, during which time he was one of the worst (bottom 20%) pass-blocking offensive linemen in his draft class. His struggles in pass blocking were pretty clearly tied to (i) his lack of awareness and poor response time to twists and stunts, causing creative defenders to come unblocked, and (ii) his sub-par athleticism, which limited his ability to adjust in space, stay on-balance, etc. All together, he was seen as a long-shot developmental prospect best selected by a team with a power-run focused offense (so, not a zone-based running game). The Pats are, perhaps obviously, not that team.

If one or both of those show something impressive next year that nobody's seen from them before, awesome. That would be good news, of the sort we could use plenty of. But I'm not sure it's good money to bet on it.

It might be safer money to go get guys who project as strong starters at those positions.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
48,343
Melrose, MA
Seems to me that the best case outlook for next year looks like this:
LT -- free agent signing: Ronnie Stanley (BAL) or Cam Robinson (MIN).
LG -- maybe a cheap vet signing (Bekton? Zeitler?) to allow time to groom a rookie or one of they current OGs on the roster (Sow, Robinson, et al).
C -- a healthy Strange? A healthy DAndrews?
RG -- a rejuvenated Onwenu, left to focus on his best position.
RT -- Wallace

Bench:
Lowe, Robinson, Sow, a mid round rookie
Seems about right. At a bigger picture level, I think what the Pats need to do is invest heavily in the left side of the line and count on being able to fill C and the right side with what they have on hand, and on Onwenu showing up in shape. Strange or Andrews at C, Onwenu at RG, and Wallace or Lowe at RT, with Brown, Robinson, Sow, Jacobs competing for backup spots.
 

Garshaparra

New Member
Feb 27, 2008
742
McCarver's Mushy Mouth
Throwing a huge bag ($50M a year-level huge) at Stanley to convince him to come north is really our best bet at quick improvement. Presuming the Pats get #1 (I know, I know), and trade down to 4-9, they're likely to be able to get either Campbell or Banks. Going into 2025 with Stanley at LT and Campbell/Banks at RT, with Lowe/Wallace as backup OT is a massive change to the team's weakest unit.

Like Higgins at WR, Stanley truly is the only sure thing upgrade, and then it's a big dropoff to Robinson. He has been ok in MIN, but actually has committed more penalties than Lowe this season, which seems impossible, but it's true.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
7,105
Cultural hub of the universe
Lazar with some post game takes on Wallace:

"Real [expletive], coming back from a broken leg, this was more than I could ask for," Wallace said of playing these final two games. "I knew there was a shot that I could come back, but I didn't know if I needed surgery until three or four weeks after it happened. It was a big deal."
As for how he felt his 41 snaps went vs. the Bills, Wallace said, "It was alright. I had a couple of plays that I want back. But nothing catastrophic, to be honest. It was alright."
According to Pro Football Focus's initial charting, Wallace allowed just one hurry in 21 pass-blocking snaps. In my initial viewing, the rookie appeared to pick up post-snap line movement like stunts and blitzes well, along with holding his own as a one-on-one blocker.

https://www.patriots.com/news/game-observations-eight-takeaways-from-the-patriots-win-over-the-bills-in-sunday-s-season-finale
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
38,996
Are we just ignoring the 74 penalties Wallace committed?
meh, he got called for 3 penalties 2 accepted. I thought none of them were bad. He got called for ineligible downfield because the screen got screwed up which he can't tell, it's behind him, the OL gets called on those but it's the QB's fault. The two holds were both pretty far into plays on scrambles, that's inevitable if you just dance around in the pocket too long. He played pretty well, and he didn't have any of the particularly concerning penalties for an OL... no formation penalties, no false starts, no holds because he got smoked off the line.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
meh, he got called for 3 penalties 2 accepted. I thought none of them were bad. He got called for ineligible downfield because the screen got screwed up which he can't tell, it's behind him, the OL gets called on those but it's the QB's fault. The two holds were both pretty far into plays on scrambles, that's inevitable if you just dance around in the pocket too long. He played pretty well, and he didn't have any of the particularly concerning penalties for an OL... no formation penalties, no false starts, no holds because he got smoked off the line.
And IIRC, the other hold was on a play where Milton scrambled to his side which made the DE who was engaged with Wallace in one direction, pull away and revealed the sort of "inside the pads" holds that typically goes uncalled.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
For me, aside from who they hire to be Head Coach, that HC has to nail the OLine coach (and the WR coach, but that's for a different thread). I don't think the Pats have had a single OLineman play better with Elvis on his helmet than he did before joining the Pats since the 2019 version of Trent Brown.

EDIT: I just researched to discover that the OL coach during Vrabel's tenure at TEN was a guy named Keith Carter. Vrabel fired Carter at the end of his (Vrabel's) penultimate year. Carter is now OL coach for the Jets (since Jan 2023).
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
38,996
For me, aside from who they hire to be Head Coach, that HC has to nail the OLine coach (and the WR coach, but that's for a different thread). I don't think the Pats have had a single OLineman play better with Elvis on his helmet than he did before joining the Pats since the 2019 version of Trent Brown.
This year is interesting because.... I can't tell, but I think Peters might have done a solid job? Lowe was better than last year, and while the line was terrible, it also involved mostly guys we pulled off other teams' practice squads. I thought Robinson looked a little better late year.... it's rough and hard to tell when you have 1 NFL starter caliber player on the line.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,770
Isle of Plum
For me, aside from who they hire to be Head Coach, that HC has to nail the OLine coach (and the WR coach, but that's for a different thread). I don't think the Pats have had a single OLineman play better with Elvis on his helmet than he did before joining the Pats since the 2019 version of Trent Brown.

EDIT: I just researched to discover that the OL coach during Vrabel's tenure at TEN was a guy named Keith Carter. Vrabel fired Carter at the end of his (Vrabel's) penultimate year. Carter is now OL coach for the Jets (since Jan 2023).
I think the offensive line coach, and this is difficult to believe given the outcomes, might be ok. It was a revolving door of shiite and he occasionally got serviceable play from guys that were on scrap heaps…until the next guy got hurt. Think he had good experience too.

edit - didn’t see CDs post until I shared mine
 
Last edited:

Eric Fernsten's Disco Mustache

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Do people here prefer Ronnie Stanley (BAL) or Alaric Jackson (LAR) or Cam Robinson (MIN)?

Bleacher Report, SBNation, and PFF all rank them thus:
  1. Stanley
  2. Robinson
  3. Jackson
Does anyone feel differently, especially when factoring in the fit to this team?

Pulling this over from the Draft thread

It's important to acknowledge that all three are a role of the dice (any can get injured, get out of shape, fall off some other cliff, etc.)

I might be wrong, but the impression in my head is that Stanley and Jackson are both somewhat better than Cam. And between the two I'd prefer Jackson, mostly because he'll be (only) 27 next season while Stanley is pretty long in the tooth
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
38,996
Pulling this over from the Draft thread

It's important to acknowledge that all three are a role of the dice (any can get injured, get out of shape, fall off some other cliff, etc.)

I might be wrong, but the impression in my head is that Stanley and Jackson are both somewhat better than Cam. And between the two I'd prefer Jackson, mostly because he'll be (only) 27 next season while Stanley is pretty long in the tooth
I think at least 1, maybe 2 of those guys never makes it to market. Robinson might be the only one available.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,770
Isle of Plum
I think at least 1, maybe 2 of those guys never makes it to market. Robinson might be the only one available.
Yeah, ultimately the new coach may have a scheme based preference but I’m just looking for a warm body that isn’t a turnstyle. I’ll defer to those with a more technical opinion but ultimately I’m looking at it more like CD…who can I get to take my money?

If I get to pick, I’m definitely taking Stanley because he’s the best. I’m looking for a stopgap for a couple years anyway. Hopefully looking for a long-term solution, well continually even once we have one. Like qb or wr.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,770
Isle of Plum
Bump.

Nothing really new, but with a turnover in coaching I’ve been wondering again what we have here.

Seems either Andrews or Strange could provide functional play at center. That’s an upgrade already.

I can’t imagine another Onwenu at RT apocalypse, so I’m going to assume decent play at RG. That’s an upgrade already.

Nothing else on the roster looks remotely starting tackle worthy (Caeden someday?)…do we have an LG at least? Layden ? Sow? Does anyone think Strange is a guard in the new world?

I keep hearing “just two tackles and a guard is all”…to the tune of “two turntables and a microphone.” Is that tmi?
 

CoolPapaLaSchelle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2015
128
Bump.

Nothing really new, but with a turnover in coaching I’ve been wondering again what we have here.

Seems either Andrews or Strange could provide functional play at center. That’s an upgrade already.

I can’t imagine another Onwenu at RT apocalypse, so I’m going to assume decent play at RG. That’s an upgrade already.

Nothing else on the roster looks remotely starting tackle worthy (Caeden someday?)…do we have an LG at least? Layden ? Sow? Does anyone think Strange is a guard in the new world?

I keep hearing “just two tackles and a guard is all”…to the tune of “two turntables and a microphone.” Is that tmi?

IIRC, in the McDaniels offense, it's the center who sets the protections. I assume this makes a healthy Andrews more valuable than ever. @SMU_Sox , is that a fair assessment?
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I think the ideal world would be for Strange/Andrews/Onwenu are your interior three, with Robinson (and maybe the always injured Jake Andrews??) backing them up.

Sign a FA LT, draft a RT to compete with Wallace, and have Lowe as your swing OT>
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,400
Philly
IIRC, in the McDaniels offense, it's the center who sets the protections. I assume this makes a healthy Andrews more valuable than ever. @SMU_Sox , is that a fair assessment?
McDaniels is flexible. The answer is probably TBD. Josh likes to put a lot on his QBs if they can handle it! But Maye is a young 2nd year player so... :) TBD.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,400
Philly
I think the ideal world would be for Strange/Andrews/Onwenu are your interior three, with Robinson (and maybe the always injured Jake Andrews??) backing them up.

Sign a FA LT, draft a RT to compete with Wallace, and have Lowe as your swing OT>
Ideally you need a starting level OG/OC. No way Strange and Andrews stay healthy all year. And that’s the hard part. Strange is, ideally, an OC. He’s been a below average starting LG.

My other question is… ok now that Josh is back and we have a different system is Strange still viewed as an OC? Is he going to be Thuney/Mankins style hyper athletic LG? Do they want to rely on him now after multiple serious injuries?
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Ideally you need a starting level OG/OC. No way Strange and Andrews stay healthy all year. And that’s the hard part. Strange is, ideally, an OC. He’s been a below average starting LG.

My other question is… ok now that Josh is back and we have a different system is Strange still viewed as an OC? Is he going to be Thuney/Mankins style hyper athletic LG? Do they want to rely on him now after multiple serious injuries?
I thought the consensus on Strange has been that, when healthy, he's an above-average LG. The issue is that he's rarely healthy. But OTOT, his injuries haven't been the type that suggest continued future injuries, unless he simply has a low pain threshold (unlike Logan "I'll play with a torn ACL" Mankins).
 

Eric Fernsten's Disco Mustache

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
I'm not sure we know much more about the talent on the roster than we did at the end of the season

My own (largely uninformed) hypothesis is that
  • One of the not-uncommon things about great players that separates them from average or below-average players is that the former can more often be successful in multiple schemes. The later are more often only consistently effective in specific roles or schemes; as with every rule of thumb there are exceptions
  • Most of the offensive linemen on the roster now appear average or below-average
  • We don't know yet what kind of offense schemes Vrabel and McDaniels decide to create around Drake Maye (how much zone blocking? how much downhill, power blocking?)
  • Ipso something-or-other-o, we may have some linemen on last year's roster for whom we don't have a "good fit" on the line next year

Take this as an illustrative example of the principle... IIRC, Layden Robinson played in a primarily 'downhill' run-blocking offense at Texas A&M (with some other stuff mixed in). The scouting report about him coming out of college was that he was strong in relatively uncomplicated situations that called for going forward with strength and power. And that his poor lateral and change-of-direction quickness meant that he struggled in zone blocking, and when responding to stutters, stunts, changes of direction, etc.

Depending on how Vrabs and McDaniel want to play, that could be the profile of rotational guard who needs help/coaching in pass pro. Or that could be someone you don't want on the roster. (He felt to me like a kinda weird draft pick last year, given how much AVP liked inside zone running plays.)

I'm not posting all this to try and squelch the discussion... more to say that we're going to know a bunch more after some preseason games, and even more a month into the season
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,400
Philly
I thought the consensus on Strange has been that, when healthy, he's an above-average LG. The issue is that he's rarely healthy. But OTOT, his injuries haven't been the type that suggest continued future injuries, unless he simply has a low pain threshold (unlike Logan "I'll play with a torn ACL" Mankins).
I thought torn patellar tendons were the type that suggested future injuries? I could be mistaken here.

When healthy he is probably an average guard. He's too often two-hand striker so that caps his effectiveness in pass pro.

His pass rate blocking efficiency was like below average in 2023 and right about average in 2022. His run blocking his consistently been below average. So at the absolute best he is just an average guard.
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
Ideally you need a starting level OG/OC. No way Strange and Andrews stay healthy all year. And that’s the hard part. Strange is, ideally, an OC. He’s been a below average starting LG.

My other question is… ok now that Josh is back and we have a different system is Strange still viewed as an OC? Is he going to be Thuney/Mankins style hyper athletic LG? Do they want to rely on him now after multiple serious injuries?
Right, this is one of the problems on the OL. You're already potentially looking at incorporating 2 new Tackles. Are you comfortable counting on Strange and Andrews when the season starts?

This is why, much as I love the guy, I want Andrews to pull the trigger and retire rather than dragging this out as he talked about when the season ended (suggesting he'll have to get to OTAs and Camp and then decide if he's still got a year left in him).

Then you can really make a decision on Strange, and tell him (for example) to spend the entire offseason working on OC and spend your free agency/draft capital accordingly.
 

Reggie's Racquet

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
7,857
Florida/Montana
Right, this is one of the problems on the OL. You're already potentially looking at incorporating 2 new Tackles. Are you comfortable counting on Strange and Andrews when the season starts?

This is why, much as I love the guy, I want Andrews to pull the trigger and retire rather than dragging this out as he talked about when the season ended (suggesting he'll have to get to OTAs and Camp and then decide if he's still got a year left in him).

Then you can really make a decision on Strange, and tell him (for example) to spend the entire offseason working on OC and spend your free agency/draft capital accordingly.
I agree... but Andrews has been a warrior and he deserves whatever time he needs to make his decision about his future.
 

Eric Fernsten's Disco Mustache

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
The safest position to take is probably that we've got a starting RG in Onwenu. And after that we're looking for four solid starters.

Maybe a starting LG emerges from some combination of Robinson, Sow, and Strange. Maybe Andrews comes back healthy and effective. Maybe Caeden Wallace or Lowe get a step-function better.

It feels pretty risky to count on more than maybe one of these, and to presume you can predict which one it's going to be.

I'd try to add a tackle and a guard in free agency. That + one bit of good luck from the above list means you only need to get a starter at one spot on the line through the draft

We keep saying this over and over, but it would be great to nail a bunch of our day two and day three picks. Get those right and this line could look a bunch better, fast.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
48,343
Melrose, MA
IIRC, in the McDaniels offense, it's the center who sets the protections. I assume this makes a healthy Andrews more valuable than ever. @SMU_Sox , is that a fair assessment?
I thought it was the QB who set protections in Josh's system,. This year, with AVP, there were a few articles about how Andrews was going to be doing that and that it was new for him.
 

CoolPapaLaSchelle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2015
128
I thought it was the QB who set protections in Josh's system,. This year, with AVP, there were a few articles about how Andrews was going to be doing that and that it was new for him.
Yep, I had it backwards. It'll be on Maye's plate, though presumably with McD in his ear until the cutoff. Presumably makes a transition to C easier for Strange.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,400
Philly
W/R/T what they run: McDaniels thought that the WCO might be too limited for Maye. McDaniels likes to have a balanced run game. McDaniels run-game and passing game coordination/synchronization are freaking beautiful. Just look at Cincinnati for an example of what happens when it is out of sync...

So where does that leave us with Strange? He's kind of a Thuney/Mankins style LG but he is not that good in pass pro and one of his flaws is he has issues lining up defenders in space as a puller. He's more of a center to me than he is an OG. You can probably make due with a starting level FA IOL + Andrews, Strange, and Robinson to fight out for the other spot.

They need 2 FA OTs who are starting caliber and an IOL starting caliber player. The could probably use an upgrade on depth too but that's a lot to ask for in one offseason already.

The safest position to take is probably that we've got a starting RG in Onwenu. And after that we're looking for four solid starters.

Maybe a starting LG emerges from some combination of Robinson, Sow, and Strange. Maybe Andrews comes back healthy and effective. Maybe Caeden Wallace or Lowe get a step-function better.

It feels pretty risky to count on more than maybe one of these, and to presume you can predict which one it's going to be.

I'd try to add a tackle and a guard in free agency. That + one bit of good luck from the above list means you only need to get a starter at one spot on the line through the draft
I think you're right on but I would make it two starting caliber OTs. Draft this year for OT is not great and supply is even worse than overall quality.
 

Eric Fernsten's Disco Mustache

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
I think you're right on but I would make it two starting caliber OTs
No argument here. I'll happily sign in free agency 100% of the starting-caliber OTs that are willing to sign with us.

Given how few are going to be out there it's a little hard to imagine that number could be more than two. But trying to predict that feels a little like debating how many down linemen can dance on the head of a pin.

Either way, I'm with you: more is better
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
13,137
around the way
No argument here. I'll happily sign in free agency 100% of the starting-caliber OTs that are willing to sign with us.

Given how few are going to be out there it's a little hard to imagine that number could be more than two. But trying to predict that feels a little like debating how many down linemen can dance on the head of a pin.

Either way, I'm with you: more is better
I'm firmly in the "we need two legit starting OTs" camp. Not going to lose sleep if guys like Lowe and Wallace are coming off the bench to plug holes. Nobody has 3+ starting-quality OTs, and even if someone throws a team at me who does, it's not a reasonable expectation under the CBA to have such. You need two legit starting OTs, even below-average but middle-of-the-bell-curve types. You can't have your best guys as #2 RT/#3 LT types, which is what we have. Whether these positions are filled via FA, trade, or draft makes no difference--we have cap space up the wazoo. Just get 'er done.

I'm less concerned about our ability to patch together OC and OG, because we haven't been awful at finding functional ones. Of course plus guys there don't grow on trees, but our OL has been such dogshit that five starting offensive lineman who are somewhere around average would be a huge step forward. Beating a dead horse, since I'm always harping on tackles, but that's where we need to prioritize imo.
 

Eric Fernsten's Disco Mustache

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Beating a dead horse, since I'm always harping on tackles, but that's where we need to prioritize imo.
I'm with ya

And not to over-index on the clip I just saw of Mike Green bulldozing Josh Conerly at the Senior Bowl, but I'm sensitive to SMU's point that this might be a real disappointing draft to try and find help at tackle
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
13,137
around the way
I'm with ya

And not to over-index on the clip I just saw of Mike Green bulldozing Josh Conerly at the Senior Bowl, but I'm sensitive to SMU's point that this might be a real disappointing draft to try and find help at tackle
There's always guys. There just aren't as many sure things. Rosengarten started 14 games this year for a damn good team and was better than any tackle we played. That's not a flex--I wasn't sure about him either. We just have to figure out who they are. FWIW, I think that everyone is sold on Ersery, but from there it's wild divergences of opinions on who has the athleticism, arm length, mobility/fluidity to do the job well. Hopefully the braintrust guesses right, and we end up with the guy who runs out there for the next ten years. That plus the right FA pickup (plenty of $), and bingo. Last two drafts we didn't really even try.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
38,996
There's always guys. There just aren't as many sure things. Rosengarten started 14 games this year for a damn good team and was better than any tackle we played. That's not a flex--I wasn't sure about him either. We just have to figure out who they are. FWIW, I think that everyone is sold on Ersery, but from there it's wild divergences of opinions on who has the athleticism, arm length, mobility/fluidity to do the job well. Hopefully the braintrust guesses right, and we end up with the guy who runs out there for the next ten years. That plus the right FA pickup (plenty of $), and bingo. Last two drafts we didn't really even try.
So one note... Rosengarten could play in part because he WAS on a good team. It's far easier to play O-line on a team where the guys around you are really good. Rosengarten played really well, but I think if he were here.... he'd have struggled close to as much as Wallace. Consistency and the guys next to you are important. Patriots had basically neither. 1.5 talents at most and the most rotation of any line in the league.
 

Eric Fernsten's Disco Mustache

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
I think you're right on but I would make it two starting caliber OTs. Draft this year for OT is not great and supply is even worse than overall quality.
There's always guys

Coming back to this conversation

The more I listen to offseason chatter from around the league the more I feel I hear a lot of teams (and/or their fans) telling themselves that this is the offseason they're gonna fix their offensive line through free agency. But at the same time there aren't *that* mean starter-quality linemen hitting the market

If...

supply << demand in free agency; and

supply << demand in this year's draft;

...then we should be prepare for the scenario where we get less improvement in our offensive line between now and training camp than we want.

I'm not saying that's what's going to happen. But take as a overly-simplistic attempt to capture the range of outcomes as something in the neighborhood of:
  1. We see no improvement to the quality of play by our starting line
  2. Improvement results in starter-quality play at 2-3 positions on the line
  3. Improvement results in starter-quality play at 4-5 positions on the line, better-than-starter play at 0-1
  4. Improvement results in starter-quality play at all 5 positions on the line, better-than-starter play at 2-3
We should prepare ourselves for the probable outcome to be something like
  1. 10%
  2. 40%
  3. 30%
  4. 20%
We all want #3 or #4... but the odds of #1 or #2 are not nothing...

Take this whole thing as illustrative, not precise/descriptive
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,770
Isle of Plum
Coming back to this conversation

The more I listen to offseason chatter from around the league the more I feel I hear a lot of teams (and/or their fans) telling themselves that this is the offseason they're gonna fix their offensive line through free agency. But at the same time there aren't *that* mean starter-quality linemen hitting the market

If...

supply << demand in free agency; and

supply << demand in this year's draft;

...then we should be prepare for the scenario where we get less improvement in our offensive line between now and training camp than we want.

I'm not saying that's what's going to happen. But take as a overly-simplistic attempt to capture the range of outcomes as something in the neighborhood of:
  1. We see no improvement to the quality of play by our starting line
  2. Improvement results in starter-quality play at 2-3 positions on the line
  3. Improvement results in starter-quality play at 4-5 positions on the line, better-than-starter play at 0-1
  4. Improvement results in starter-quality play at all 5 positions on the line, better-than-starter play at 2-3
We should prepare ourselves for the probable outcome to be something like
  1. 10%
  2. 40%
  3. 30%
  4. 20%
We all want #3 or #4... but the odds of #1 or #2 are not nothing...

Take this whole thing as illustrative, not precise/descriptive
Terrific exercise thanks. It’s hard for me to look past the inability of (essentially this same) FO to improve any position at all. That said , I’m generally skewed more towards the middle.

40% for #2 isn’t bad since I think they’ll basically start with two (Onwenu plus Andrews/Strange) and I’m hoping they can dredge/scrounge/resuscitate/whatever at least one guard out of the dreck.

Getting to either 4 or (!) 5 functional lineman means getting Tackle sorted. I can’t somehow allow myself to dream : )
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,400
Philly
I think the first part of your premise is right on @Eric Fernsten's Disco Mustache. We definitely should prepare for the worst as well as other potential outcomes.

I don’t know about the scenarios and %s aspect of it. I think mapping that out now is premature before we can figure out who is a FA as well as get some additional information on prospects. For example, Lazar said that Josh Simmons has a torn patellar tendon to go along with his torn ACL. Wyatt Milum came in at 32.5” or something like that arm length wise.
It’s also possible the line gets worse. I’m old enough to remember when I got shit for suggesting that last year. It’s hard to imagine how it would get worse but it always can.

My guess is that they at least get one starting caliber OT and 1 IOL starting level caliber FA. If they miss out on OTs again in FA this could get really ugly again.