How important is an experienced OL?

[eulessau 115]

Pat Dye's last year - talented but inexperienced OL - losing record - fired.

Terry Bowden's final year - talented but inexperiend OL (went thru 4 centers due to injuries) - losing record - fired.

Tommy Tubberville's last year - talented but inexperienced OL - losing record - fired.

Gene Chizik's final season - talented but inexperienced OL - losing record - fired.

Now, I realize that there were a myriad of other factors that contributed to these bad to awful seasons, specifically bad quarterback play, but there was a common theme.

In all of the above cases, except after Bowden, the first season for the successor was a successful one. I attribute much of this to the gelling and seasoning of the previous season's young OL. Bowden went undefeated his first year and one loss his second. Tommy took AU to the SECC game his second season. Chizik won the BCS his second year. IMO, the common theme was the seasoning of young, inexperiened, but talented OL's.

This year's OL will be much improved. We will have four returning starters, with enough depth and competition that some may not keep their starting job.

2014's OL will only lose one senior (Slade), and he may not end up a starter in 2013. This group, barring injury or leaving early, will have two and in some cases three years of playing together as a unit. They could easily end up being as good, if not better, than the 2010 group.

[gilstein21 1]

definitely important, but it's also important that the experienced linemen can play as a unit as well. The 2010 OL was excellent at both.

[waspan 0]

If Reese and Patrick Miller can hunker down and challange themselves and everybody on that line it could become very good very soon, teach and inspire the younger kids and set an example........

[cooltigger21 0]

The O line play can make or break the offense. An experienced unit will normall play together as one and they all know what the other guys are doing and it makes it work for all the coaches want to do. Auburn in 2010 and the past two Alabama teams are a testament to that.

[Tiger 8,855]

IMO o-line is the MOST important part of the team. If you can't run block or pass protect you can forget about moving the chains. Which in turn gives the ball to the other team frequently (and generally in good field position), which means more possessions/points for the opposition. Very much so a slippery slope.

[IronMan70 3,322]

The success or failure of any football team begins and ends with the line play, both on the OL and DL. Experience is one factor but one of the most important factors to the success of an OL.

[j34mac34 0]

Chemistry and experience is very important to an o-line. Having a great o-line class is awesome, but the problem with that is that in 4 or 5 years the majority of your o-line will be replaced with all or mostly new o-linemen, and you have to start the process over again. The best way is to stager your classes where at best you lose one and at worst your lose two. Replacing three or more is very hard to do and have continued success, not impossible, but very hard.

[Tiger 8,855]

I don't think its a coincidence that the O-lines in both 2010 and 2004 were both great, given the disparities between the two teams.

[theduke 5]

About as important as a gun in a knive fight and 5 guns are better than 1.

[BuckTiger 0]

Pat Dye's last year - talented but inexperienced OL - losing record - fired.

Terry Bowden's final year - talented but inexperiend OL (went thru 4 centers due to injuries) - losing record - fired.

Tommy Tubberville's last year - talented but inexperienced OL - losing record - fired.

Gene Chizik's final season - talented but inexperienced OL - losing record - fired.

Now, I realize that there were a myriad of other factors that contributed to these bad to awful seasons, specifically bad quarterback play, but there was a common theme.

In all of the above cases, except after Bowden, the first season for the successor was a successful one. I attribute much of this to the gelling and seasoning of the previous season's young OL. Bowden went undefeated his first year and one loss his second. Tommy took AU to the SECC game his second season. Chizik won the BCS his second year. IMO, the common theme was the seasoning of young, inexperiened, but talented OL's.

This year's OL will be much improved. We will have four returning starters, with enough depth and competition that some may not keep their starting job.

2014's OL will only lose one senior (Slade), and he may not end up a starter in 2013. This group, barring injury or leaving early, will have two and in some cases three years of playing together as a unit. They could easily end up being as good, if not better, than the 2010 group.

It's vital to have an experienced O-line.

[AUwent 3,841]

Alright, for Tuberville's last year, the OL was considered one of the strengths going into the year. I can say that 2008 was the most excited I've ever been coming into a season, and our experience on the OL was a reason why. We had started 3 true freshmen the year before, and that group won 7 out of their last 9 games. Due to Franklin wanting the OL to LOSE WEIGHT (probably part of the reason Ramsey got hurt), and the clash of beliefs among the staff, the OL regressed heavily.

Please stop using youth on the OL as an excuse, or anything resembling an excuse, for last year. Our line was young in 2011. The whole point of 2011 was for the stud offensive linemen we had recruited the previous two classes to start, get playing time, and grow up towards the end of the year. I remember looking at our starters on the OL pre-season that year and facepalming when I saw two seniors, Moseley and Cooper (and later AJ Greene) were starting. Moseley I can understand, but Greene and Cooper should have NEVER started. I don't care that they were seniors, they had just as little playing time as our new freshmen (Greene's few games in 2010 don't count, sorry) and they weren't going to be available the next year. Why weren't we starting Robinson? Westerman? The guys that had made up two of the TOP O-LINE CLASSES IN THE COUNTRY IN CONSECUTIVE YEARS? So, as a result, we again had inexperience on the line coming into last year, when we were supposed to have an experienced unit ready to contend for another SEC title. Of course, Chizik made countless other ridiculous, short-sighted decisions that prevented us from reaching success.

But to me, the offensive line is the SINGLE most important position on the team. Not quarterback, not running back, but the line. One way to spot a disappointment in the pre-season is if, despite being loaded at skill positions, they have a young OL. I called for Wisconsin to disappoint this past year for that very reason (okay, so they did go to the Rose Bowl, but still). I think experience on our OL will help this year and the year after that, and depending on who we start (Avery Young and Jordan Diamond, for example), we could have some experience up front in '15 as well. I do wish we got a better O-line coach, but Malzahn has shown during his time as an OC that he knows how to manage the "big uglies." Heck, even with the youth on the line in '11, we were able to put up the points before Chizik's egotistical meddling completely ruined things.

[alexava 6,976]

I don't think its a coincidence that the O-lines in both 2010 and 2004 were both great, given the disparities between the two teams.

2010 line was not great. it was servicable and experienced. it did well but the strength of that offense was due to misdirection in 09 and the threat of a freak qb running and throwing in 10. 2014 will be a great oline, that is my prediction.

[keesler 5,961]

I don't think its a coincidence that the O-lines in both 2010 and 2004 were both great, given the disparities between the two teams.

2010 line was not great. it was servicable and experienced. it did well but the strength of that offense was due to misdirection in 09 and the threat of a freak qb running and throwing in 10. 2014 will be a great oline, that is my prediction.

I agree 100% about our '10 Oline - they were servicable, they were not a great oline.

I distinctly remember our oline allowing penetration from the defense and Cam literally salvaging the play with his legs. Cam could freaking fall down and gain us 3 yrs. With a stellar oline in '10 (ala UAT's oline in '12) there's no telling what Cam could have done. We dang sure wouldn't have had so many nail-biter games that went down to the wire, i.e. MSU/Clemson/Kentucky.

[Tiger 8,855]

Maybe the term "great" was thrown a bit loosely around in regards to 2010 team, but 2 of the O-lineman were first team all SEC thats 40% of the entire offensive line was at the top level in the top conference. Thats pretty damned good.

My point was that its no coincidence that the last 2 great teams in modern Auburn football, the offensive lines were critical part of the success.

I guess I should've phrased differently

[H8UA 0]

I do wish we got a better O-line coach, but Malzahn has shown during his time as an OC that he knows how to manage the "big uglies." Heck, even with the youth on the line in '11, we were able to put up the points before Chizik's egotistical meddling completely ruined things.

Like who? Grimes has put close to 50 OL in the league during his career and most of those were not the most athletically talented players to begin with. He is not OK, he is a GREAT OL coach.

[WarTim 3,529]

FYI.......Coach Dye was NOT fired.

[quietfan 233]

On the 2010 line: Don't forget that the 2010 team had two 1000-yd rushers (Cam and Dyer), plus OMac at 900+. Admittedly all those were great running backs in their own right, but would they have been as successful without a great line?

Yeah, there were some close games and Cam had to rescue some plays with his own feet, but some of the close games were because of a defense that would give up points early then make game winning stops late. And the Spread, by it's nature, is going to demand that the O-line cover more territory, and can leave more gaps in QB-protection.

Of course, as I recall, the 2004 team had a good QB and some good running backs behind a strong line...

[auburnphan 6,050]

there is a difference between experienced and talented...

[autan 811]

there is a difference between experienced and talented...

You are so right phan. Huge difference!

[alexava 6,976]

On the 2010 line: Don't forget that the 2010 team had two 1000-yd rushers (Cam and Dyer), plus OMac at 900+. Admittedly all those were great running backs in their own right, but would they have been as successful without a great line?

Yeah, there were some close games and Cam had to rescue some plays with his own feet, but some of the close games were because of a defense that would give up points early then make game winning stops late. And the Spread, by it's nature, is going to demand that the O-line cover more territory, and can leave more gaps in QB-protection.

Of course, as I recall, the 2004 team had a good QB and some good running backs behind a strong line... ;)/>

2010 line was not bad. But it was far from great. The misdirection, the # of threats on the field at a time and gus system made the offense click. We didnt have a straight ahead rushing attack and pass blocking was very mediocre. With that said i would take that same line play this coming season. The last two were horrible.

[rollsroyce5 0]

FYI for the OP, love your post. Just one correction: Slade us a Jr this year so he'll be back for '14.

[aubfaninga 16]

Alright, for Tuberville's last year, the OL was considered one of the strengths going into the year. I can say that 2008 was the most excited I've ever been coming into a season, and our experience on the OL was a reason why. We had started 3 true freshmen the year before, and that group won 7 out of their last 9 games. Due to Franklin wanting the OL to LOSE WEIGHT (probably part of the reason Ramsey got hurt), and the clash of beliefs among the staff, the OL regressed heavily.

Please stop using youth on the OL as an excuse, or anything resembling an excuse, for last year. Our line was young in 2011. The whole point of 2011 was for the stud offensive linemen we had recruited the previous two classes to start, get playing time, and grow up towards the end of the year. I remember looking at our starters on the OL pre-season that year and facepalming when I saw two seniors, Moseley and Cooper (and later AJ Greene) were starting. Moseley I can understand, but Greene and Cooper should have NEVER started. I don't care that they were seniors, they had just as little playing time as our new freshmen (Greene's few games in 2010 don't count, sorry) and they weren't going to be available the next year. Why weren't we starting Robinson? Westerman? The guys that had made up two of the TOP O-LINE CLASSES IN THE COUNTRY IN CONSECUTIVE YEARS? So, as a result, we again had inexperience on the line coming into last year, when we were supposed to have an experienced unit ready to contend for another SEC title. Of course, Chizik made countless other ridiculous, short-sighted decisions that prevented us from reaching success.

But to me, the offensive line is the SINGLE most important position on the team. Not quarterback, not running back, but the line. One way to spot a disappointment in the pre-season is if, despite being loaded at skill positions, they have a young OL. I called for Wisconsin to disappoint this past year for that very reason (okay, so they did go to the Rose Bowl, but still). I think experience on our OL will help this year and the year after that, and depending on who we start (Avery Young and Jordan Diamond, for example), we could have some experience up front in '15 as well. I do wish we got a better O-line coach, but Malzahn has shown during his time as an OC that he knows how to manage the "big uglies." Heck, even with the youth on the line in '11, we were able to put up the points before Chizik's egotistical meddling completely ruined things.

Our offensive line was the youngest offensive line in the SEC!!! Period!!! I don't care how you slice it or think that is the cool thing to do to rant about people making excuses when they are in fact slapping you with facts. The only school that came close to the youth that we had at offensive line is Vandy. We had 2 upperclassmen on our entire depth chart and Lutzy played injured for a good portion of his games.

At the end of the day we lost too many games in 2012. 2012 is over so now I can honestly say that I am excited to see that we should have the same nucleus of offensive lineman for the next 2 seasons. Not bad for a team with an "old" offensive line.

p.s. You were excited about our 2008 offensive line??? Our offensive line was a big question mark for me going into the 2008 season with our new offensive scheme. We lost Bennett, Dunlop, Hart from 2007 and that was bad enough for me at least. Lee Ziemba was a bright spot returning from 2007 but was still a sophmore. I did love to watch Jason Bosley scrap it out in the trenches. Green still seemed to be going through a learninig curve at the end of the 2007 season but he seemed to get the bugs worked out before the start of 2008.