I just read a blurb that was trying to describe just how BAD the Pats OL was. It mentioned he was sacked 10% of his drop backs and hurried 20% of the time.
It occurred to me that that meant that he WASN'T sacked 90% of the time and not hurried EIGHTY percent of the time. Imagine if you had that kind of success rate at the plate in baseball or a shooting percentage in BBall. Just trying to put some perspective, when we call players bums who win 80% of the time
I'm NOT trying to say that we don't need to improve the OL, but to add some perspective to the thought that it's all about changing the players is the ONLY way to improve. I would opine that better coaching, offensive schemes, or better QB/receiver play and better mental discipline is all that needed to move the needle so we are at the 85% level of non-hurries and 5% level of sacks. Those are the kind of stats that decent OL's get to.
We've had a LOT of very successful offensive linemen who were not even red chippers who had successful careers because the maxed out their ability and where in a good system with good coaches.
Let's face it. There just aren't any blue-chip OT's in this draft, so why agonize about it. I'll be happy to see us get one guy who improves the athletic talent at LT and begins to develop that talent. Remember the kid the eagles got from NZ, didn't see much of the field until his THIRD year. Draft and DEVELOP. To do that you need skill and continuity. 2 things we don't have.... yet.