If you didn't catch the article:

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2013/01/wendell_is_nfls.html

Basically Wendell, who all would say he's been a good center this year, has played the most snaps in the NFL this year. In addition to playing the most snaps he's only commited 2 penalties all year. That's 1 penalty every 690 snaps (that's amazing)

• Solder at LT
• Mankins LG
• Wendell C
• Vollmer RT (assuming he is resigned)

I'm not sure where the need for OL is this offseason. You can make a case for RG but RG's aren't hard to find. The backups also did a good job for being backups. Of course you can add depth but that's a solid 4 out of 5 starters moving forward on the OL and Cannon has also played at a starting caliber RT spelling Vollmer. 

Evaluating the O line is hard because the only way to do it accurately is to watch a lot of film.  There are no stats that really help you.  Sure a low sack total and a low QB hit number suggest good pass blocking, and a good average yards per carry suggest good run blocking, but they are hardly definitive because so many other things are happening on the field that affect those stats.  You really have to evaluate by watching the line play and watching closely. 

My sense (from some, but still admittedly inadequate, watching of film) is that the O line is above average, but maybe not quite so good as some think.  Pass blocking is really helped by Brady's quick decision making.  Run blocking is aided by the use of the two TEs and even by guys like Welker who block pretty well from the receiver position.  Plus the backs this year have shown the ability to get extra yards beyond what the blockers create for them.  

My sense (again based on a very incomplete review of film) is that we could still use help on the line.  One more quality (and athletic) interior blocker would really help, I think, and could even be a priority in the draft (though we have other gaps to fill too).  Vollmer and Solder are good, but Solder is still learning and Vollmer has injury problems that often affect his play. I'm still not sold on Cannon at tackle.  So another guy in the mix at tackle, though something of a luxury, would help.  

The line is good enough to leave as is, but I think there are still opportunities to improve talent and I wouldn't mind seeing a high draft pick used on an athletic center/guard and another tackle (maybe an older, experienced player) brought in for depth. 

This all assumes Vollmer is back and reasonably healthy.  If that's not the case, then tackle is a big priority, I think. 

This post has been removed.

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

I 100% agree. I think another good measure of how an OL played is QB hits, and Bradys were unusually high this year.

Additionally, Vollmer and Thomas are free agents.

Vollmer and now Mankins showing injury concerns

I would not be upset if the Pats invested on both lines early in the draft

This post has been removed.

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

You basically said what I said except that you aren't sure about Cannon, that's about it. We both agree RG they could use another guy but as I said RG's aren't hard to find and you don't need to spend high in the draft or FA to get one.

Of course you could still improve. Other then QB we could improve on every position on the field but in reality we have an above average OL for any team that passes the eye test and has some young guys to build off of. You kept saying adding guys would be a luxury which is essentially depth. You don't build depth with early picks or spending additional cap space in FA. You build depth by getting bodies in camp and mid to late round picks to see who clicks. To me that makes it a low priority, esp early in the draft when there are some serious holes at WR, DB, and adding to the pass rush needs to be addressed.

As you said they could stand pat and still be an above average OL next year so why prioritize it when you have one of the greatest OL coaches on your staff? Get a bunch of guys in via FA maybe grab a RG in the 3rd (you can still find starting caliber RG's in the 3rd) and let Scar work with them.

But the main point is this OL is better then most people think and has far less holes then most people think too.

Oh as far as the TE's and WR's helping the blocking, well of course but that's how it's designed. BB isn't suddenly going to turn that around because of a marginal improvement to the line so the end result doesn't really get you very much more then you already have

Here's where I think we have a slight difference in opinion, Eng.  I think the O line plays well because Scar (and probably Belichick) do a fabulous job coaching them to play well as a unit and preparing them for the games.  But, I still think talent matters and I see Connolly and Wendell as fairly middling talent.  Mankins is good, but the injuries are starting to pile up and that's a bad sign.  Vollmer the same.  While Scarnecchia can work wonders with average talent (late rounders, older FAs), I think the lack of talent does create problems against great DLs (Giants over the past few years, SF this year).  Upgrading the talent won't make a big difference in most games--but in some of those big games it could be key.  A lot of people think we would have won the Super Bowl last year if we ran more.  I'm not convinced by that, but I do think we could have won if the O line blocked better.  For that reason alone, I'd like to see some more talent on the line.  Scar's coaching does a lot . . . but it doesn't makes guys quicker or more powerful.  Athletic ability isn't something you coach. 

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

Mankins and Vollmer weren't healthy and neither was Gronk.  I think that was a bigger issue than talent. I wouldn't be opposed to the Pats investing more picks in the trenches in the upcoming draft (always a good investment imo), but the talent was good enough on the O-line to beat the Giants in last year's SB imo.

This post has been removed.

In response to pcmIV's comment:

That may be the case . . . if the line and Gronk were 100% healthy the blocking surely would have been better.  Mankins and Vollmer are both high quality talent when healthy as, of course, is Gronk.  That said, with Mankins' ongoing injury issues and Waters gone, I think the interior line needs more talent . . . and if Vollmer isn't back or continues to be injured, the tackle position needs help too. 

 

 

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

as pcmIV pointed out you didn't have a healthy Gronk, Mankins, or Vollmer. You have a lot invested in 2 out of those 3 and I wouldn't want to shove Vollmer off to the side considering when he's on the field he plays at a pro-bowl level. So what can you do? You can't invest starter money or picks into backups. As much as we all would love to you can't have a roster of 53 starters it's just not possible. Now you only typically carry 8 OL into each game total. If healthy Vollmer, Solder, and Mankins are automatics. Mankins and Solder you have to much invested in to have on the bench or even release. Vollmer you could let walk but why? Wendell this year has been one of the better C's in the league and even impressed TB. I would keep him as the starting C esp given his age and that he and Brady have rarely not been on the same page. You now have 4 positions to fill. Cannon has played well enough that regardless how you or I feel about him he deserves a position. That leaves 3 possible slots to fill. 1 of which has to be filled by a starting RG. That leaves you 2 back ups. If you want one additional for the T position he'd better also be able to play G. Why would you spend even a 2nd round pick or any type of real money on a G/T combo to be an incase of emergency break glass backup? No GM in their right mind would. So you have 1 spot left to fill and since you don't have a backup C yet again you need a flex G/C. You run into the same problem as the G/T. Basically the only spot you would spend any type of money or draft pick on is RG and that's the one position on the entire line you don't need to spend a large amount of money or high draft picks on because they are so readily available. Really when you look at it, it's completely unrealistic to have a starting caliber player to back up Vollmer and Mankins simply because there isn't enough space on the roster not to mention the incredible waste of resources. That's where Scar gives us a huge advantage. You can take "middling" talent as you put it and they play at a playoff caliber player.

I do sometimes wonder though what do Pats fans compare the current players to? Is it against other teams OL units in the league or against individual players. Of course on an individual basis we don't have the talent to match up but as a unit compared to the rest of the league we have one of the top OL's in the game and that's not good enough? We need to prioritize it over other much bigger holes and fill it with an all-pro OL? It's just not possible to have all-pro's at every position so you need to prioritize. Solder isn't an all-pro but has played very well and you aren't going to replace him. Mankins is going to the pro-bowl again and his contract is huge so you aren't going to replace him like you did with Light. Vollmer has missed 1 game this year and none in 2010 so basically only 2011 was the only year he missed a good portion of time and he plays at a pro-bowl level, why would you replace him? Wendell has made it look seemless taking over the C position and rarely (once every 4th game or so) have I seen Brady drunking for his life because of pressure up the middle even against top end D's in the league. How much are you going to improve on that even if you spend a 1st on a C?

In response to PatsEng's comment:

I think Wendell has been the unsung hero and one major constant on our line this year and he is gonna be very key in the playoffs because we know what Brady hates the most. Pressure up the Middle!  Great job, now sign em up to a contract!

In response to TripleOG's comment:

My question would be:  Is playing that many snaps a good thing?  That's a lot of battles to fight in a season.  I would thing that player longevity is related to the cumulative number of snaps taken over a career Or at least plays a factor In a players longevity.  Then again maybe not, just asking.

In response to tcal2-'s comment:

Well what's the alternative TCal? Run less plays or less series? You can't platoon C's ever. You just can't because it is a critical position to play

Eng, I agree that you can't fill every position with all-pro talent.  That said, I think you go into the draft and free agency knowing what areas would be good to improve and depending on who's available at the time you pick or sign players, you try to acquire the best talent available at those positions. 

There are a lot of moving parts, but I'd say the Pats are going to have to address WR, DT, corner, and offensive tackle in the offseason.  They may address those needs by re-signing some of their own free agents (Vollmer at tackle, Wes at WR, Talib at corner, etc.), but one way or another they need to get bodies in those positions (as well as try to improve, if possible).  

There are other areas where they have "bodies" but could find opportunities to improve--that, in my opinion, includes safety, interior O line, and maybe OLB and DE. 

Then there are areas where they are pretty much set and would probably only take developmental "value" players or a great talent that came cheaply: QB, RB, TE, MLB.  

I see the tackle position as something they need to address--probably by resigning Vollmer, but certainly in some way.  Interior O-line is something I don't think they should be complacent about.  It may not be a top priority, but it's in the second tier of priorities and a position you may address if the right talent is available at the right value.  That could mean drafting a top prospect late in the first round if that's the best player available at that pick.  I wouldn't be at all disappointed if this is what the Pats do, rather than picking a lesser talent in a position of higher need.  If they picked a RB in the first round with Ridley and Vereen still young and under contract, I would be surprised, but a center or guard in the first round would make sense to me, even if it's not the absolute highest need. 

Pro-

I can see that but I'm looking at the draft prospects right now. At C there really isn't a huge difference between players projected late 1st to 4th range and for the most part history plays that out with few exceptions. You won't be drafting a LG because you have Mankins and you can't always take a LG and flip them over to RG and make it work. Some players only play well on one side or the other. You just don't draft a LG early in the draft as a backup to take over 3-4 years down the road, just in case. That's what gets you in trouble with the draft. RG is a position where some of the best are usually found in the 2nd day. Not a lot of teams draft RG's early because of all the OL positions they are the least valuable. No matter how I look at it if you want a starter on D you typically have to get them early. If you want to get a starting caliber interior OL player you can find them anywhere between the 2nd and 6th truthfully.

If they are there and are drastically better then a hole to fill I wouldn't have an issue but I also wouldn't take them just because they might be the best available if the drop off in talent between them and the players in the next couple of rounds is minimal. Esp, if the player who could fill a hole behind them has a larger drop off in talent at that position before your next pick.

If I had to prioritize I would go:

#1 DT/NT - Wilfork needs a full time player next to him to help with the interior rush. We've seen the difference in the D when the front 7 gets pressure and when they don't. This year they improved but they still have a long ways to go to get consistent pressure

#2 CB - if McCourty is a permenant move to S and even if you resign Talib who else do you have? Dennard looks good but still a question, Ras has played what 4 games in 2 years, Arrington might get starting money somewhere else which the Pats won't mathc, then who is left?

#3 WR - if Welker leaves then you basically have Lloyd and an oft injured Edelman. Even if Hern moves to the slot position you still need a WR opposite Lloyd. Even if Welker stays you still need a WR

#4 RG - I don't trust Connolly to stay healthy which means they are 1 RG short. They can plug and play and still play at a high level but it would be nice to have one RG you can count on every week

#6 S - McCourty moving to FS helps a lot but SS is a serious weakness. Ebner might or might not grow into it, Gregory......, Wilson has regressed and only plays close to the line

#7 OL depth - always good to have depth

#8 Coverage LB - Fletcher or Tarp might fill that role but if not they need one

In response to PatsEng's comment:

My thoughts are not identical but similar. I would not say Connolly is the one that might get replaced. It may still be Wendell. I do hope and think they could upgrade the interior of the line (assuming they resign Vollmer).

It was stated earlier that there are not a lot of good stats to gauge the play of the line. Well, do you guys WATCH the games or just read the papers and ohh and awww at a pass and a catch. Are you football fans or fantasy football fans????

Too often I saw the combination of C and guards make mistakes in pass blocking this year. And it was often the interior we had trouble with in both SB loses. I tend to think Connolly is better than Wendell the latters iron man year notwithstanding.

...

That list of priorities is about where I'd put it too.  (Assuming they re-sign Vollmer, of course--because if not, then tackle becomes a high priority in my opinion.)  Depending on what happens with their own free agents at WR and corner, those positions could become more critical than DT simply because we don't have anyone to fill them, but DT is still an area where another quality player would be extremely valuable.  Interior line and safety come right after those positions in my opinion.  Then I agree another LB who can cover would help. I wouldn't mind another DE either, though the quality guys are generally first round picks.  

 

 

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

Yeah depending on who they resign it does change. If they lose Vollmer it does rise up quickly because even though I trust Cannon to sub in for Vollmer I'm not sure he can go a full season yet. But he has improved greatly from last year.

That's what I mean by OL being lower priority though. You can find RGs and Cs in the 2nd-5th round but a top end DT, S, CB, WR? Those are hard to find in those mid rounds. Even if there is a RG that is rated higher I still might take a shot at one of the hole guys first simply because I know you can find interior OL later in the draft and that Scar can coach them up, I'm not as confident with those other positions

In response to portfolio1's comment:

I did watch the games and Wendell has played very well this year. I'd say he played better then Connolly as C last year. Now Connolly is a better G but he also hasn't finished a complete season yet. He's missed 9 games over the last 4 seasons which is a little high for me. It's funny though that you mention the SB since Connolly was the C in last years SB and Connolly also allowed more pressures up the middle than Wendell did as starting Cs.

In response to PatsEng's comment:

Yeah, I'd agree with this too.  Guards are a bit easier to find than the other positions.  Oddly, WR seems to almost always be a crap shoot no matter where you pick them, which maybe makes me feel a little more comfortable with a defensive player in the first round.  Still WR is a very high priority in my opinion, so I wouldn't object to a top pick being used on one.  

 

In response to PatsEng's comment:

Just throwing a question out there that relates to the topic.  I've never seen a study on it or searched for one.  Just curious what others thought.  I know RB shelf life is affected by their usage.  Based on that you could reason every position is affected by # of plays.  If this is true then it brings up a whole other question:  Is the Super Hurry up and plain Hurry up Offense actually bad for the players?

More the 10% of Wendell's snaps came on ST.  I guess if you wanted to limit snaps you could start there.

Interesting questions, Tcal . . . don't know the answer, but the number of plays probably does put some strain on players.  

In response to tcal2-'s comment:

I understand why you asked the question but really the OL is the one area you can't sub players in an out without risk of getting your QB killed. OL's really need to gel together to be affective and when you sub you never get them into the flow of the game. As for the hurry up, yes that can wear down players careers quicker. You have to think the more hits a player takes the shorter their playing career. But, it's very effective if you can pull it off. Though, it could also increase their careers. One side effect of quick snaps is the D can't get set so even though they might get hit more the amount of force absorbed could be reduced over their career. Truthfully since no team has ever been this fast it's hard to know.

As for the ST's, well you only have a limited amount of players to toss out there. Really that's the only reason Gronk was on the extra point that broke his arm. There just isn't enough backups to fill 11 players on ST's so starters have to play some of the time