He also led the way with extremely accurate and effective personnel evaluation. In Finding the Winning Edge, Walsh defined the exact characteristics a player needed to exhibit to enjoy success in his 49ers organization. Once I got my hands on a copy of the prolific tome, I was especially interested in his section on offensive linemen. Specifically, I was curious to see how this "Walsh Method" holds up in today's league, with today's linemen.
Walsh outlined the various strengths that he looked for in offensive tackles; are those same qualities as important in today's league?
For each position, I'll offer a summary of his argument, followed by my analysis of how it holds up in 2012. First in the series of posts is offensive tackle. Let's take a look:
Offensive Tackle
Walsh's take:
He acknowledges the increasing weight of tackles, but says that getting up to 330 pounds or more is unnecessary. Players who weigh that much "...play well in spite of weighing 330, not because of it. The only apparent benefit of weighing that much is to attract the attention of the television camera crew" (p. 125). There are certainly players in this weight range who are successful, but Walsh believes they might enhance their performance by dropping weight. His "ideal size" for a tackle is listed at 6'4", 310 pounds.
 |
| Bubba Paris is one of the examples Bill Walsh gives of an ideal offensive tackle. |
Long arms are also important to gain leverage. A tackle's ability to move within a 2-yard by 2-yard box is critical since the large majority of their most important duties take place in that box. This can be coached to an extent, but players without natural ability in this box won't be able to accomplish as much.
Another aspect of the tackle's play that can be coached is the timing and execution of blocks, although once again, much of this comes naturally to a good player.
Next is adaptability. Walsh saw the 1990s as a new era in offensive line play, in that the increased complexity of NFL defenses meant the tackle now had to deal with three or four possible scenarios, whereas there used to be only one or two possibilities to anticipate. An example of this would be a LB blitzing from the outside while the DE who was expected to rush drops into coverage instead. The modern offensive tackle, Walsh argues, must be able to recognize these variations immediately and react accordingly.
The last key point Walsh makes about tackles is a psychological one. More than most of the other positions on the field, they must have an extremely high level of confidence and self-control in order to be able to stay composed when things go wrong on the field.
Analysis:
I could not agree with Walsh more on his last two points. A successful NFL offensive tackle must be incredibly smart and quick-thinking, yet highly stable psychologically. He can never be too "up" or "down." Whereas certain positions (mostly defensive) can just "get angry" and up their level of play, the offensive tackle will quickly make mistakes if he gets too amped – or conversely, dejected – and leaves his ideal mental zone.
Adaptability is even more important now than in 1998. Wide receivers are arguably more physically dominant today than they were when Walsh coached, so defenses rely on increased pressure to even the playing field. To do this, they throw increasingly complicated stems, stunts, and blitzes at the offensive line in an effort to confuse them and thus diminish the potential role of Calvin Johnson-esque receivers. Consequently, offensive linemen who are able to recognize and adapt to the plethora of defensive looks they see are more valuable than ever.
Their ability to recognize a blitz is important, but if they cannot physically match up with the agility of elite pass rushers, today's tackles are essentially useless. Pass protection schemes now often rely on sending a running back or tight end to "chip" a pass rusher (read: give him a shot right in the windpipe) before they head off into a route, thereby making the tackle's job easier. If an offense doesn't need to involve skill players in pass protection as much because their tackles are agile in that 2x2 yard box, then they have more freedom in their passing schemes.
Walsh's point on weight might be his most contentious, though. If he was correct that tackles didn't need to weigh 330 pounds back then, Since Finding the Winning Edge was published in 1998, the average weight of NFL offensive tackles ballooned up from 311 pounds to 320 in 2000. Since then, it has hovered around the 'teens and 20's.
 |
| Joe Thomas is a prime example of intelligence, adaptability, and agility at the tackle position in today's NFL. |
Their ability to recognize a blitz is important, but if they cannot physically match up with the agility of elite pass rushers, today's tackles are essentially useless. Pass protection schemes now often rely on sending a running back or tight end to "chip" a pass rusher (read: give him a shot right in the windpipe) before they head off into a route, thereby making the tackle's job easier. If an offense doesn't need to involve skill players in pass protection as much because their tackles are agile in that 2x2 yard box, then they have more freedom in their passing schemes.
Walsh's point on weight might be his most contentious, though. If he was correct that tackles didn't need to weigh 330 pounds back then, Since Finding the Winning Edge was published in 1998, the average weight of NFL offensive tackles ballooned up from 311 pounds to 320 in 2000. Since then, it has hovered around the 'teens and 20's.
He lists the 1997 NFC Pro Bowlers as such:
Lomas Brown – Arizona Cardinals (6'4" 275 lbs.)
Willie Roaf – New Orleans Saints (6'5" 300 lbs.)
Erik Williams – Dallas Cowboys (6'6" 324 lbs.)
Now, here are the 2012 NFC Pro Bowlers:
Jason Peters – Philadelphia Eagles (6'4" 340 lbs.)
Joe Staley – San Francisco 49ers (6'5" 315 lbs.)
Jermon Bushrod – New Orleans Saints (6'5" 315 lbs.)
Granted, the sample size here is fairly small (the number of men, not the men themselves), so the heights and weights listed are not statistically significant. Nevertheless, we can see from the short list of gifted tackles who played 15 years apart – a long time in the NFL – that Walsh is correct in identifying natural girth as the most basic requirement of a great tackle. In today's game, a tackle under 6'4" has little chance of succeeding.
But can weighing over 330 pounds be detrimental to a tackle's ultimate potential?
 |
| Jermon Bushrod - 6'5" 315 lbs. |
 |
| Jason Peters - 6'4" 340 lbs. |
Above are two of last year's Pro Bowlers. On the left is Jermon Bushrod, while Jason Peters is on the right. Keep in mind that both of these men are elite offensive tackles. Bushrod is slightly larger (1 inch taller, 10 pounds heavier) than Walsh's "ideal" tackle, while Peters is significantly heavier.
Both men are Pro Bowlers because they possess a natural girth in bone structure, and they developed power and agility over the course of their careers. Bushrod especially has long arms, which is advantageous because it allows him to create separation from defenders in pass protection.
The logical sequence for this analysis is to declare one of these players "better" than the other. However, I can't necessarily agree with Walsh's point. Having played every offensive line position at various weights, the best way I can sum up my modification of Walsh's argument is this:
In most cases, playing over 330 does not hurt a tackle's ultimate potential. It just makes him a different type of player.
For me (granted, a shorter player than either of the above gentlemen) it was difficult to really push linemen around at 250 or 260. Once I got up in the 285 range, run blocking became significantly easier. Conversely, my agility on downfield blocks was affected (you guessed it) negatively. Staying on linebackers once I reached them became more difficult. Blocking safeties and corners became a comically futile lumbering struggle.
Hence, playing at different weight levels creates a slightly different skill set based on the player. I'd be more likely to feature Bushrod in an offense with lots of zone rushing and bootlegs, so he could set the point on defensive ends and make blocks downfield. A player with Bushrod's build would generally also be the more agile pass protector, and would be more capable of taking on elite pass rushers without help from a tight end or running back. Conversely, Peters is more naturally suited for a power running game, yet that does not preclude him from being a great zone blocker or pass protector.
This brings me to what I see as Walsh's most important point, and that is the extent to which these various types of blocks come naturally to linemen. To give a personal example, I developed a natural feel for pass protection over time thanks to lots of coaching and countless reps in practice and games; it just made sense to me physically in a way that other types of blocking didn't. I never really figured out the footwork necessary to stay on downfield run blocks, despite intense study and repetition.
Therefore, I don't believe in Walsh's blanket statement that tackles weighing 330-plus should drop weight. For those who are naturally skilled in certain types of blocking, playing at a higher weight emphasizes their strengths and allows the offensive coordinator to lean upon those strengths in his gameplan. In today's league, 330 isn't nearly as massive as it was to Walsh in 1998. Yet other skills and values – mindset, adaptability, agility – are more important now than ever. It seems that once again, Walsh was ahead of the curve.
The logical sequence for this analysis is to declare one of these players "better" than the other. However, I can't necessarily agree with Walsh's point. Having played every offensive line position at various weights, the best way I can sum up my modification of Walsh's argument is this:
In most cases, playing over 330 does not hurt a tackle's ultimate potential. It just makes him a different type of player.
For me (granted, a shorter player than either of the above gentlemen) it was difficult to really push linemen around at 250 or 260. Once I got up in the 285 range, run blocking became significantly easier. Conversely, my agility on downfield blocks was affected (you guessed it) negatively. Staying on linebackers once I reached them became more difficult. Blocking safeties and corners became a comically futile lumbering struggle.
Hence, playing at different weight levels creates a slightly different skill set based on the player. I'd be more likely to feature Bushrod in an offense with lots of zone rushing and bootlegs, so he could set the point on defensive ends and make blocks downfield. A player with Bushrod's build would generally also be the more agile pass protector, and would be more capable of taking on elite pass rushers without help from a tight end or running back. Conversely, Peters is more naturally suited for a power running game, yet that does not preclude him from being a great zone blocker or pass protector.
This brings me to what I see as Walsh's most important point, and that is the extent to which these various types of blocks come naturally to linemen. To give a personal example, I developed a natural feel for pass protection over time thanks to lots of coaching and countless reps in practice and games; it just made sense to me physically in a way that other types of blocking didn't. I never really figured out the footwork necessary to stay on downfield run blocks, despite intense study and repetition.
Therefore, I don't believe in Walsh's blanket statement that tackles weighing 330-plus should drop weight. For those who are naturally skilled in certain types of blocking, playing at a higher weight emphasizes their strengths and allows the offensive coordinator to lean upon those strengths in his gameplan. In today's league, 330 isn't nearly as massive as it was to Walsh in 1998. Yet other skills and values – mindset, adaptability, agility – are more important now than ever. It seems that once again, Walsh was ahead of the curve.
