https://lbolineperformance.com/why-draft-gurus-incorrectly-evaluate-o-linemen/
NFL draft season is the time of year when everyone with a microphone or a social media account becomes an authority on player evaluation. The best and worse part of everyone having the ability to voice an opinion, is everyone having the ability to voice an opinion. There are some very good pundits that do a wonderful job evaluating talent. On the other hand, there are some complete frauds hiding behind Twitter avatars and network logos with the hopes of never being exposed.
The two most difficult positions to evaluate are cornerback and offensive line. Do I believe you have to had played either position to be fully capable of providing an accurate evaluation, no. I do believe you better have a more than solid familiarity with why players fail at these two respective positions, than why they succeed.
One of the proverbial "pink elephant in the room" issues with offensive line evaluation is, rarely does anyone ask "how?". Every player entering the draft is walking in to the NFL with a bag of key performance inhibiting traits. The popular school of thought says, the higher draft pick, the less inhibiting traits. Well, the fact is, it's not the quantity of performance inhibiting traits, it's the type. Some inhibiting traits run much deeper than others. I like to say, some are surface, others are systemic. It's the systemic issues that make or break player development. Ironically, these are the most overlooked traits by the "experts" when evaluating offensive line talent. These traits are overlooked because they distract from all of the other bells and whistles the evaluator has "fallen in love" with. Remember, the higher draft picks are normally the guys that will check the box of every testing metric presented. They're going to run, jump, and measure within a respectable range of their previously highly drafted counterparts. This is where the trap is laid.
The "How?"
Instead of being alerted by a significant flaw, many pundits pretend the NFL is a developmental league. They throw phrases around like, "he just needs a year in an NFL weight room". Look, if a player isn't strong enough coming out of college, he's screwed. The NFL is not getting him stronger. Player X has bad footwork, "he just needs time under the tutelage of an NFL offensive line coach". Well, is he going to get the "tutelage" before or after the hours upon hours of installing the playbook? The fact is, NFL clubs don't have the time or truly the interest to develop players. Also, you have to be careful being so dismissive of collegiate S&C staffs and offensive line coaches. Not many will say it but I don't really give a damn, there are better coaches in college than in the NFL. The difference at the collegiate level is coaches need to get players better in order to keep their jobs. They have to invest. NFL players lose their jobs when they don't perform, coaches just get recycled. With that said, why are the pundits not asking the simple question, "how is this issue going to get resolved?". We all know at the offensive line position the biggest, fastest, and strongest don't always survive. The physical prowess they've demonstrated in meaningless testing does nothing but keep the player's head above water long enough to get chopped off.
The two questions we all have to answer when evaluating an o-lineman
How do you resolve the key performance inhibitor?
How long will it take to resolve the issue?
Is the player truly committed to the process? (This is a team issue. Not fair for pundits to answer this because they don't have team access)
If these two questions aren't or can't be answered, there needs to be a re-evaluation of the player and "expert".
I'm not going to mention names of players to bolster my point. That's not fair to the player. If I were to mention the names of players, I'd have to mention the pundits that were slobbering all over the players prior to them being drafted. That's only fair. Gladly for the sake of civility, I don't believe this is called for.
