What a difference a line makes.

[Dave Gray]

I saw a stat today that said that we're 7 and 1 when Albert, Pouncey, and James start and finish a game.

That's pretty crazy. 

But just looking at the eye test, when we block, we run plays, everyone is better.  The passing and running game looked great, and as Gase said, the defense looks a lot better when they play 51 minutes instead of 77.

How good of a team can we be if these guys (and Tunsil) can stay healthy?

[Run Ricky Run]

It was nice to see they commuted to the run. And it wasn't just because they were winning. Whenever the game plan is throw first, it goes to shit. Running takes pressure off the line and Tannehill.

[Phishfan]

I think it is wasted discussion personally. As the stat says, Miami is 7-1 when these guys all start and finish a game. There have been 38 games so far that these guys have been on a roster together. Talking about having them all injury free is like asking about having Dan Marino take an ageless pill.

[Dolfanalyst]

I think it is wasted discussion personally. As the stat says, Miami is 7-1 when these guys all start and finish a game. There have been 38 games so far that these guys have been on a roster together. Talking about having them all injury free is like asking about having Dan Marino take an ageless pill.

No kidding.  And when your team is hinging on the health of three guys simultaneously, it suggests that there aren't other components of the team that can overcome the adversity associated with injury.

During the same period of time that 7-1 record was compiled (the past several years), what do you suppose the team records are for New England, Seattle, Carolina, and Denver, when one or more of their three best offensive linemen don't play for some reason?

In other words, if you want to be a Super Bowl contender, I suspect you probably need to overcome this sort of adversity, rather than being overcome by it.

If the health of three of your offensive linemen is making that much of a "difference" (as the title of the thread indicates), it suggests the rest of your team is probably fairly inadequate.

[Spider-Dan]

If the health of three of your offensive linemen is making that much of a "difference" (as the title of the thread indicates), it suggests the rest of your team is probably fairly inadequate.

It's one thing to say that it's not a realistic expectation to have your current offensive line healthy.
It's quite another to say that the performance of the line is not that big of a deal, as you have been for many weeks.

See, if we can agree that having a competent line DOES make a big difference, then it would seem to make sense for the Dolphins to invest resources in fixing that problem, instead of throwing away money and picks on other positions while the line continues to flounder.

[Dolfanalyst]

It's one thing to say that it's not a realistic expectation to have your current offensive line healthy.
It's quite another to say that the performance of the line is not that big of a deal, as you have been for many weeks.

See, if we can agree that having a competent line DOES make a big difference, then it would seem to make sense for the Dolphins to invest resources in fixing that problem, instead of throwing away money and picks on other positions while the line continues to flounder.

Or does it make more sense to invest resources in areas of the team that can overcome the absence of one or more of the three linemen?

The study to be done here is on whether good teams can overcome the absence of one or more of their three best linemen, and if so, how they do it.

I just watched the Cowboys run roughshod over Green Bay at Lambeau Field yesterday without La'el Collins, for example.  How did they do that?

[Tenshot13]

Or does it make more sense to invest resources in areas of the team that can overcome the absence of one or more of the three linemen?

The study to be done here is on whether good teams can overcome the absence of one or more of their three best linemen, and if so, how they do it.

I just watched the Cowboys run roughshod over Green Bay at Lambeau Field yesterday without La'el Collins, for example.  How did they do that?

LOL, because the other olineman are even better than Collins?  That was a luxury pick for the Cowboys that year, they didn't desperately need oline help, unlike the Dolphins that are one or two players away from a crappy oline if any of the starters get hurt.

[Pappy13]

Or does it make more sense to invest resources in areas of the team that can overcome the absence of one or more of the three linemen?

The study to be done here is on whether good teams can overcome the absence of one or more of their three best linemen, and if so, how they do it.

I just watched the Cowboys run roughshod over Green Bay at Lambeau Field yesterday without La'el Collins, for example.  How did they do that?

Well that's only 1 offensive lineman when the Cowboys have 5 good ones. Plus they have Zeke, Dak, Jason and Beasley. In other words they have several good offensive players, not simply a couple they rely on. Losing 1 good player out of 8 or 9 is not as big of an impact as losing 1 out of 3 or 4.

[Dolfanalyst]

Well that's only 1 offensive lineman when the Cowboys have 5 good ones. Plus they have Zeke, Dak, Jason and Beasley. In other words they have several good offensive players, not simply a couple they rely on. Losing 1 good player out of 8 or 9 is not as big of an impact as losing 1 out of 3 or 4.

And that's the point I'm making (the bolded portion).

[Pappy13]

And that's the point I'm making (the bolded portion).

Actually I think that was the point that I was making when you were talking about Tannehill's contract next year. Tony Romo's salary cap hit is $20 M this year and he hasn't played a game, so apparently it IS possible to pay $20 M to your QB and STILL be able to put together a team around him.

[Spider-Dan]

I just watched the Cowboys run roughshod over Green Bay at Lambeau Field yesterday without La'el Collins, for example.  How did they do that?

Because, as mentioned, they have 4 other good offensive linemen.

Again: you've been claiming for weeks that the quality of the line is an overrated factor, and that instead of trying to fix the clearly broken line, Miami should focus on churning other (skill position) players.  So why does the offense play so much better with their best offensive linemen?

[Dolfanalyst]

Actually I think that was the point that I was making when you were talking about Tannehill's contract next year. Tony Romo's salary cap hit is $20 M this year and he hasn't played a game, so apparently it IS possible to pay $20 M to your QB and STILL be able to put together a team around him.

When your QB plays like Romo, you don't need as much talent around him, and so the $20M cap hit for the QB has more relative value.

[Dolfanalyst]

LOL, because the other olineman are even better than Collins?  That was a luxury pick for the Cowboys that year, they didn't desperately need oline help, unlike the Dolphins that are one or two players away from a crappy oline if any of the starters get hurt.

I'd suggest you take a look at the resources the Cowboys have put into their starting offensive linemen, and compare them to the resources the Dolphins have invested in their starting linemen.  You may be surprised.

[Spider-Dan]

The point is that DAL has been able to build a competent surrounding cast while getting exactly zero production from their $20M QB.

[Dolfanalyst]

Because, as mentioned, they have 4 other good offensive linemen.

Again: you've been claiming for weeks that the quality of the line is an overrated factor, and that instead of trying to fix the clearly broken line, Miami should focus on churning other (skill position) players.  So why does the offense play so much better with their best offensive linemen?

What data do we have that tell us the offense plays better with its best offensive linemen, and by how much?