How would you build an offense from scratch?

[-X-]

Haha. That's how I want my funeral to go too. Line all my friends up in front of an industrial floor fan and dump my ashes in front of it.
Give everyone a Paulie facial.

 

[blue4]

I guess QB is what I'd look at first, but can't really answer without actually knowing the players.

As far as OL vs QB, I'll take the OL. I don't care if the last 500 SBs were won with QBs, if it's my job on the line to make the playoffs and do well in the playoffs I'm taking the OL. Easier to sustain injuries, easier to compete with top teams, easier to draft BPA if you know you can open holes and keep a guy upright.

 

[WvuIN02]

No QB today has a clean pocket most of the time. The QB and audibles can mitigate a lot of pass rushes and pressure though, and I think its crazy to take OL over one. Yes, every once in a blue moon you get the 2000 Ravens defense to fall back on with a guy like Dilfer, good luck with that...its the exception not the rule. You hit on a QB once you have your playcaller for the next 10-15 years who can win almost on their own (Rodgers and Ben are fantastic at mitigating bad line play because they move so well in the pocket or are hard to bring down).

 

[blue4]

No QB today has a clean pocket most of the time. The QB and audibles can mitigate a lot of pass rushes and pressure though, and I think its crazy to take OL over one. Yes, every once in a blue moon you get the 2000 Ravens defense to fall back on with a guy like Dilfer, good luck with that...its the exception not the rule. You hit on a QB once you have your playcaller for the next 10-15 years who can win almost on their own (Rodgers and Ben are fantastic at mitigating bad line play because they move so well in the pocket or are hard to bring down).

Problem is historically only about a quarter of the teams at any given moment possesses one of these guys. Besides, if you have a great OL you can still make the playoffs with a lesser guy while waiting for MR. Right. Course, Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, Tampa Bay and a few others have waited decades for that guy. I'd say odds are better going with OL. Besides , SBs are won by playcallers and coordinators as much as QBs.

 

[RAGRam]

Problem is historically only about a quarter of the teams at any given moment possesses one of these guys. Besides, if you have a great OL you can still make the playoffs with a lesser guy while waiting for MR. Right. Course, Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, Tampa Bay and a few others have waited decades for that guy. I'd say odds are better going with OL. Besides , SBs are won by playcallers and coordinators as much as QBs.

But in this hypothetical you have your pick of any QB in the league, can you win with a great OL and below average QB? Yes. Am I passing on Luck/Rodgers because of that? Hell no.

 

[DR RAM]

Hire good, patient, flexible minded coaches for every position on offense, who all "buy in" to the system you want to run. Make sure they are also good teachers, and shapers of young men. In free agency, and the draft, take the best players available, who you can fit inside your salary cap without handcuffing yourself.

If you think a franchise QB comes along the way, you get him, because they are few and far between. Secure a solid backup QB.

All things being equal, which they are not, build from the inside out, but the truth is, you will only always be as good as your coaching, player management, and all 53, but particularly your dressed 46, believing in, and playing hard for your staff.

Oh, I almost forgot. Have a good relationship with the commissioner, and push the boundaries of gaining an advantage whenever you can.

 

[snackdaddy]

If you're building an offense from scratch it begins with the QB and a guy who can protect his blindside. Then you get him a high caliber WR and a good RB to run with. Then you get another guy to shore up the right side.

With all that said, I believe the way to build a team is to collect blue chippers on defense. A good defense will keep you in games until you can build the offense.

1. QB
2. LT
3. WR
4. RB
5. RT
6. C
7. WR
8. LG
9. RG
10. TE
11. FB/HB

 

[Angry Ram]

LT
QB
RB
WR
C
TE
RT
RG
WR
LG
WR

 

[MrMotes]

No single player has a bigger effect on the game than the QB. I mean the fact that we're deciding who's more important, one man (the QB) or 5 men (the OL) gives you your answer right there...

 

[Prime Time]

No single player has a bigger effect on the game than the QB. I mean the fact that we're deciding who's more important, one man (the QB) or 5 men (the OL) gives you your answer right there...

That's because only one man can play QB, while five men are needed for the O-line...geez.

 

[LosAngelesRams]

QB - I'm taking a top tier QB 1st, I'm a huge believer of having a strong OL but IMO a elite QB makes a bigger impact than a elite lineman. The Browns are a good example.

LT - Taking LT 2nd. Got to protect our elite QB and there shouldn't be that much of a drop from the 1 and 2 pick talent wise.

C - Again, more top talent OL to protect the QB. C is a very important position IMO.

RT - Yup, more OL!

RB - Got a good QB and OL, now I'm grabbing a playmakers at RB.

WR - Grabbing a #1 WR here. Should have a nice balace of skill and protection now.

LG - Now we lock up the left side of the line.

RG - The OL is now complete.

WR - I'm getting there #2 here because I value this position more over what's left to get and we already have a #1.

TE - Grabbing the best blocking TE available, I prefer to have a better blocking TE over the deep threat type IMO.

FB - Taking FB last but also targeting the best blocking FB over one getting carrys. With a good blocking TE and FB, they should be able to open up extra yards for the RB I took at #5 and provide better protection to our #1 selection.


That was fun lol, great thread idea btw. Should we do a defense one?

Peace.

 

[jrry32]

Assuming fantasy is reality and you could pull from a league-wide player pool. What would be the first position you draft (sign), all the way down to the 11th? And keep in mind that by the 11th pick, the law of diminishing returns is in full effect.

Your first pick is a 100 rating and your last is a 79.

1. QB (name him if you want, but not necessary)

.... then what?

1. QB
2. HB
3. LT
4. C
5. LG
6. RG
7. RT
8. TE
9. WR
10. WR
11. WR

Adding names (assuming that with each round the player availability gets worse):
1. Andrew Luck (tough decision but Rogers is 31 while Luck is 25)
2. Le'Veon Bell
3. Trent Williams
4. Jason Kelce
5. Zack Martin
6. Marshal Yanda
7. Lane Johnson
8. Travis Kelce
9. Torrey Smith
10. Keenan Allen
11. Kendall Wright

I'm running a ZBS so I chose ZBS OLs.

 

[RamzFanz]

Assuming this is a pool of players from the available talent, I would go RB first. There is no position that has less elite talent that is indispensable.

1) RB (Bell)

2) QB (Manning)

3) DE (Quinn)

4) CB

5) FS

6) Everyone else.

If you can run the ball, pass the ball, disrupt the pass, you win. You don't need stars if you have a stable.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Funny, true story about that clip.

My best friend of close to 30 years passed away and had his remains be cremated. I was given half the ashes (his family got the rest) with his request that I scatter the remains over some of our favorite golf courses we'd played over the years.
My first "scatter" was over a 204 par three that has a 120 foot drop. Most guys hit a wedge off the tees.

Up I step, say a few poignant words and throw the ashes. That clip is exactly what happened.

I said "Lenny, you're still f'ing with me!!"

 

[Rmfnlt]

I would take franchise QB over the franchise LT if I was starting from scratch.
Again, given the exercise in the OP I'd start with QB and probably go oline next.
I certainly don't think you just win with stud oline and jag at QB.

Guess I''m not going to be able to figure out your stance.

Earlier, you said: "I guess that would be a fair response if someone said that QB was most important, and o-line last. I dont think anyone is saying that."

Sure sounds like you are saying QB is more important, so, yeah, someone is saying that.

Oh, what the hell... I get confused so easily now-a-days.

 

[Zaphod]

LT, C, RT, LG, RG, TE, TE, FB, RB, WR, WR and finally QB

 

[rick6fan]

Assuming this is a pool of players from the available talent, I would go RB first. There is no position that has less elite talent that is indispensable.

1) RB (Bell)

2) QB (Manning)

3) DE (Quinn)

4) CB

5) FS

6) Everyone else.

If you can run the ball, pass the ball, disrupt the pass, you win. You don't need stars if you have a stable.

Here's the problem I see with that...when you take your second pick, there will be no Manning. You will be looking at 25-32 best QBs in the league. In other words, the ones whose teams are desperately trying to replace them. In this scenario, you cannot count on an "average" QB at your second pick.

 

[12intheBox]

As an addendum to this thread .....

how would you rank the players on our current offense?

RB (we hope)
then what?

 

[Alaskan Ram]

1)LT
2)RB
3)WR
4)WR
5)TE
6)RT
7)C
8)LG
9)RG
10)WR
11)Austin Davis

Build the team, add the QB last. There is someone, somewhere out there that can succeed if put it in the right situation.
Create the right situation, and find your Kurt Warner, and play good football.

 

[dieterbrock]

Guess I''m not going to be able to figure out your stance.

Earlier, you said: "I guess that would be a fair response if someone said that QB was most important, and o-line last. I dont think anyone is saying that."

Sure sounds like you are saying QB is more important, so, yeah, someone is saying that.

Oh, what the hell... I get confused so easily now-a-days.

Well, you're confusin yourself by posting out of context quotes man.
That quote from me was in regards to this

Always come back to the same question:
How far can a QB throw a football while flat on his back?

So yeah, I dont see where choosing QB means the o-line has to be terrible, nor that anyone is suggesting all you need is QB.

I go QB 1, probably OT 2