We shall see. It's not like the offensive line as currently constituted is stocked with a bunch of hall-of-famers.

I think people overrated the offensive line's improvement last year when it excelled against a lot of weaker competition.

_________________

That may be true but the run game looked bad against weak competition in the past. I don't see how you could watch last season and not see development from Montgomery and indirectly the offensive line. They have now rid themselves of soft players like Coward, Leno and to a lesser extent, Massie. I think the character of the entire line is changing as Mustipher and Bars may not be great but you could never call them soft.

They were good Week 1 and 2 before Daniels was injured as well.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

I certainly agree that the offensive line has improved, but I don't think it is as good as some have suggested.

_________________

It was still below average; weak on the edges and average in the middle

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

For the first time you can see a possible offensive identity, drafting big nasty OT's that are not real nimble seems to indicate more of a commitment to running the ball. It would seem Fields will be able to read NFL defenses better than Mitch and actually make the right reads running the RPO.

The question is can the offense move from bottom 5 to average? With the changes in the division, most notably the Rodgers mess, it may be enough to win what could be an at best mediocre NFC North.