Obviously this offense most closely resembles the Green Bay Packer offense, in that it is a quick-strike offense that gets the ball out of the QB's hands quickly so that the playmakers can make plays in space. With that being said, I think its obvious that this is of help to the OL in pass protection. The quicker the ball gets out of the QB's hand, the less time the OL has to block.
So, in light of Beatty going down, and the discussions on who is going to take his place for the time being, I went to look at who was playing LT for GB the past few years.
2012 - Marshall Newhouse
2013-2015 - David Bakhtiari
Now we all know about Newhouse (hardly a good LT) and Bakhtiari is a 4th round rookie that is now going on his 3rd year as the starting LT. I dont know too much about him, but I have a hard time believing he has more talent that Pugh or Flowers.
After looking at that, I felt a bit better about our current LT situation. I think that we can get by with either Pugh or Flowers at LT BECAUSE of the nature of this offense. It also makes me wonder if Beatty was as good as he was last year because of the offense or because he actually played very well. Time will tell whether that is true or not. It will be interesting to see whether one of these guys can come in at LT and do just as well or better than Beatty (which in turn might make him expendable next year at his current cost).
P.S. I know that the Beatty injury still causes an issue at one of the Guard spots. Hoping someone can emerge to beat out Jerry there.
Still not sure why drafting a Guard early in the draft is considered a reach when the DL pressure the QB quicker between 4-Gaps than the DE has time to get there from the outside.
Once the offense got rolling in the latter half of the year, I remember more than a couple of deep throws to Randle and OBJ.
That's really a horrendous theory to try and support.
Look at GB's effectiveness before Lacy arrived at running the ball and the number of hits/sacks that Rodgers takes. They have a POOR LT, not a de-emphasized one.
That's really a horrendous theory to try and support.
Look at GB's effectiveness before Lacy arrived at running the ball and the number of hits/sacks that Rodgers takes. They have a POOR LT, not a de-emphasized one.
Wouldn't be fair to say that most teams consider the LT position one of the most important positions on the OL (especially for a right-handed QB). They are also paid as such. Maybe de-emphasized was the wrong word, but making it less important.
That doesn't mean it is deemphasized or made less important.
The Giants had an unproven Larry Donnell last year. They still threw to him.
That's really a horrendous theory to try and support.
Look at GB's effectiveness before Lacy arrived at running the ball and the number of hits/sacks that Rodgers takes. They have a POOR LT, not a de-emphasized one.
As great of an arm as Rodgers has, he does tend to hold on to the ball a lot longer because of his ability to make plays with his legs when the pocket breaks down. He does push his sack totals up more sometimes by doing that.
That doesn't mean it is deemphasized or made less important.
The Giants had an unproven Larry Donnell last year. They still threw to him.
LT is a pretty important position. They are now "making do" with a below average player there 4 years in a row. You dont think they would allocate some kind of resources to that position if they thought it was more imporatant?
The simple law of supply and demand will dictate that not every team will have above average players there.
"Making do" while allocating resources to another area isn't the worst strategy in the world, and is in fact a necessary strategy for certain positions. It is what teams often have to do for the positions of TE and QB, where the pool of elite players is limited.
The simple law of supply and demand will dictate that not every team will have above average players there.
"Making do" while allocating resources to another area isn't the worst strategy in the world, and is in fact a necessary strategy for certain positions. It is what teams often have to do for the positions of TE and QB, where the pool of elite players is limited.
Yes. I agree. And the Packers seems to be allocating their resources to more important positions. Same as the Giants allocating their resources to WR, CB, DE more often than TE and LB.
A) The player that is holding that position is doing well
or
B) You do not see that position as being too important in the grand-scheme.
They are different things. Deemphasizing something would mean that the gameplan is different based on the personnel in place on the line or that it changes if higher quality players are manning certain positions.
There isn't evidence to suggest that. The Packers offense has pretty much been the same for several years. If you can point to something that shows they have compensated by not having an elite LT by changing the playbook or formations, that would be one thing. That doesn't seem to be the case.
They are different things. Deemphasizing something would mean that the gameplan is different based on the personnel in place on the line or that it changes if higher quality players are manning certain positions.
There isn't evidence to suggest that. The Packers offense has pretty much been the same for several years. If you can point to something that shows they have compensated by not having an elite LT by changing the playbook or formations, that would be one thing. That doesn't seem to be the case.
I dont think anything has changed. My point is, since Chad Clifton has retired in 2011, the Packers drafted Newhouse in the 5th round and left him at LT. Then they drafted Bakhtiari in the 4th round and hes been there the past 3 years. Thats close to no resources being spent on a position that is "generally" considered one of the most important positions on the OL for most teams in the NFL.
A lot of teams make strategic decisions to allocate salary to other, necessary places instead of overspending on a weakness.
The Rams had one of the toughest fronts we played all season. I know thats only one game, but they were playing their best ball coming into that game defensively.
Jags - 17th
Titans - 22nd
Skins - 3rd (?)
Rams - 13th
Eagles - 31st
Also our big 3 game winning streak the first half of the season came against:
Skins - 3(?)
Falcons - 32nd
Texans - 16th
Now I don't understand the Redskins being so high, it seems like an anomaly, but Skins aside the average defense we faced was ranked 23rd (18.5 with the Skins).
In my opinion our offensive production was more about who we played than improving. We need better OL play.
Jags - 17th
Titans - 22nd
Skins - 3rd (?)
Rams - 13th
Eagles - 31st
Also our big 3 game winning streak the first half of the season came against:
Skins - 3(?)
Falcons - 32nd
Texans - 16th
Now I don't understand the Redskins being so high, it seems like an anomaly, but Skins aside the average defense we faced was ranked 23rd (18.5 with the Skins).
In my opinion our offensive production was more about who we played than improving. We need better OL play.
I dont disagree with you on that point. OL play was far from good last year. But with Schwartz back and Richburg at C. You have upgraded at least 2 spots.