Is that there has already been quite a lot of resources invested in OL from the beginning of Gettleman's tenure until now. Yet the OL continues to be mediocre or worse. That indicates potentially a systemic problem in how the OL are scouted and developed. Hopefully Schoen/Daboll have made strides in fixing this - there were definitely improvements this year in the overall performance - but the jury is still out on both their picks and FA pickups in this area and the returns have been just ok thus far.
Johnny et al: One of my rules for analyzing sports is don't make judgments about a player or team based on one game. The sample size is just too small. The reality is that based on their stats for the season there actually wasn't a huge difference between the Eagles OL and ours. They gave up 44 sacks, we gave up 49; they averaged 4.6 YPC rushing; we averaged 4.8.
There are also other stats aren't there? About how often Hurts was pressured vs Jones?
I just don’t know how realistic it is. How many teams have that? Philly, maybe SF? Cincy is going to it’s 2nd straight AFCCG and their OL is almost as bad as ours. KC’s is decent, certainly better than ours, but I wouldn’t call it dominant.
There are A LOT of needs on this team, using all of our premium assets on the OL wouldn’t be wise IMO.
Dave: sounds like you and I could get a pretty good debate going all on our own. I have a somewhat different take. One doesn't want to discount the importance of the IOL and LB but in the end those positions don't win games. And my sense is that with some combination of the young guys they already have on the IOL and maybe a couple mid-range FAs for depth (if #s 76 and 64 don't come back) they'll be good enough upfront. I'd also be tempted to bring in a vet FA OT for depth and competition for Neal especially if he doesn't pick it up. Same story at LB.
But the best teams in the NFL do one of two things: they almost all throw the ball really well or disrupt the other team's pass offense. I really think that the key for the Giants going forward is just how good the DL can be because their is a ton of potential. Think the Giants won ten games this year with Williams, Thibo and Ojulari combining for just 11 sacks when quite literally each has the potential to post that many on their own. As I have said elsewhere I would be sorely tempted to go after someone like USC's Tuipulotu either in the first or by trading up in the 2nd if I went WR in the first. He could play a DE in early downs to give you a whole lot more size upfront and then kick inside on passing downs.
But most importantly give me a couple of good receiving options either however you do it and combined with Jones, Saquon and Bellinger we would have a very competitive offense to boot.
I really believe its going to fun going forward in these next 3-4 years.
Colin, unfortunately we are closer to the same page than you think. WR is my top need for NYG. CB is second. Pass rusher is 3rd.
But I bring up OL because if there is the right value, I am going in the direction. I will not overlook OL just because I need a WR more. A team like NYG needs to take value where it is given. My point of that tweet was simple.
If NYG can get an OL like PHI - every player on that team works better. PHI built that think for years and then in a matter of 2 years they trade up for a round 1 WR and then trade a 1st rounder for an established WR. They have the best OC in the game and just drafted his replacement. PHI is a team that knows their OL is making everyone else look better.
If you want to use CIN as an example - show me where Burrow and Chase are.
If the Giants don't get a number 1 WR next year (or excellent TE), and especially if SB goes, then next year no one should complain about how bad the offense will look.
OLinemen do not do wonders with awful skilled players surrounding them and a non-elite QB.
RE: I am with Sy - this is still at least a medium term project
Fun as this season was, the Giants benefitted from a fairly easy schedule and a few breaks along the way. It’s pretty much impossible to keep winning such a large number of one-score games. The game last night should have been a bright light shining on the fact that there are a lot of positions that need upgrades, particularly at OL and LB.
I think it’s very possible that next year’s team will be a better team with a worse record. All we can do is put our faith in the Schoen/Daboll partnership and trust that they identify the right players in the draft and FA.
In particular also at WR. In particular also the DL not getting pressure. In particular maybe a RB if SB goes. In particular another very good quality CB.
If the Giants don't get a number 1 WR next year (or excellent TE), and especially if SB goes, then next year no one should complain about how bad the offense will look.
OLinemen do not do wonders with awful skilled players surrounding them and a non-elite QB.
Buffalo traded their LT to get an elite QB, so I find it hard to believe Schoen would pass up a top end WR in the draft to take oline if the players are rated similarly
Certainly a valid consideration regarding a systemic issue identifying good OL.
Two other things I think have contributed to it. The college game and the newer CBA. The college game has moved to a lot of spread and more exotic pass offenses. More WR's are now seen but how OL are being developed has also changed.
The CBA has very restrictive rules with hitting and practice time. I don't this helps either.
wrong that doesn't have to mean using premium draft picks.
Giants have already spent a #4 and #7 overall pick and 2 3rd round picks, just from the current roster on the OL.
At some point you have to get OL contribution from value picks.
The Eagles and Cowboys have invested more in their olines and it shows.
The Eagles have NOT invested more in their offensive line than the Giants. That is categorically false.
The Eagles have just acquired better offensive line talent than the Giants (using lesser resources), and developed/retained those players to form a dominant offensive line. But if you're just looking at the resources invested in the offensive line, the Giants have spent more FA money and draft picks on the OL than the Eagles.
Certainly a valid consideration regarding a systemic issue identifying good OL.
Two other things I think have contributed to it. The college game and the newer CBA. The college game has moved to a lot of spread and more exotic pass offenses. More WR's are now seen but how OL are being developed has also changed.
The CBA has very restrictive rules with hitting and practice time. I don't this helps either.
Certainly a valid consideration regarding a systemic issue identifying good OL.
Two other things I think have contributed to it. The college game and the newer CBA. The college game has moved to a lot of spread and more exotic pass offenses. More WR's are now seen but how OL are being developed has also changed.
The CBA has very restrictive rules with hitting and practice time. I don't this helps either.
These factors impact all NFL teams, don't they?
It does. The impact is not the same for every team though and the variable with it is coaching and how the offense plays from a schematic point of view.
I really wish people would disabuse themselves of this notion that the Eagles have a dominant OL. Sure they had a dominant game against the Giants on the weekend, but on the season they were very average allowing 44 sacks (just 5 fewer than the Giants) while they averaged 4.6 yards in the run game LESS than the Giants did (4.8).
What the Eagles did have was a ridiculously dominant defence that had 4 guys with 11 or more sacks (we had none) and 70 sacks overall. They also forced 17 INTs - we had 6. They also had a dominant passing attack with two receivers with over 1,200 receiving yards and 18 TD receptions between them, more than we had total. They also had 41 big plays between them whereas the Giants had a team total of 28.
Certainly a valid consideration regarding a systemic issue identifying good OL.
Two other things I think have contributed to it. The college game and the newer CBA. The college game has moved to a lot of spread and more exotic pass offenses. More WR's are now seen but how OL are being developed has also changed.
The CBA has very restrictive rules with hitting and practice time. I don't this helps either.
These factors impact all NFL teams, don't they?
It does. The impact is not the same for every team though and the variable with it is coaching and how the offense plays from a schematic point of view.
Then I would argue that teams should play whatever scheme minimizes those factors since that seems to represent an opportunity for a significant competitive advantage. It would seem to be the height of stubbornness to insist on running a system (in any industry) where your feeder system does not provide adequate manpower and talent.
we can find the lunch pail types. Find the star. That is 10% of a unit. We aren't that far away unless you think 1 star is very hard to find. Maybe it is.
We aren't 5-6 great players away. We have a core. We need 1-2 difference makers. 1-2 of those make the world of difference.
But I bring up OL because if there is the right value, I am going in the direction. I will not overlook OL just because I need a WR more. A team like NYG needs to take value where it is given. My point of that tweet was simple.
If NYG can get an OL like PHI - every player on that team works better. PHI built that think for years and then in a matter of 2 years they trade up for a round 1 WR and then trade a 1st rounder for an established WR. They have the best OC in the game and just drafted his replacement. PHI is a team that knows their OL is making everyone else look better....
Many here wanted Creed Humphrey, wanted Linderbaum, I don't remember talk about Jurgens, but there always seem to be reasons not to: too light, C is not important enough position to draft that high (!!??), meanwhile we've had 'don't sleep on 'Pio', the loss of Gates, and it's not clear where he will be, and #76 is not the answer.
we can find the lunch pail types. Find the star. That is 10% of a unit. We aren't that far away unless you think 1 star is very hard to find. Maybe it is.
We aren't 5-6 great players away. We have a core. We need 1-2 difference makers. 1-2 of those make the world of difference.
Agreed. And keep churning / bettering the bottom of the roster.
I have my doubts whether he'd slip to #25, but if he did, he's a no brainer. Perfect NY Giants TE. Can block, can get open downfield and make tough catches. I like Bellinger, but I don't mind having 2 good TEs.
He'd go a long way to adding more of a presence at the LOS, too. He's got the added benefit of helping the blocking and adding a weapon.
Interesting to conclude the Philly Offensive Line as simply average
Jerry Reese called, he says he wants his assessment Back
LOL
I understand what you are saying and I agree to a point, I mean none of our WR would start for Philly. Every robust position on an offense helps to make it go. But you are way undervaluing that Philly OL. Comparing them to the Giants OL is ludicrous. Just Kelce alone is a HUGE boon to that offense. They completely shut down our defense. They could have not thrown a pass all game and probably still dropped 31 points on us. If we add a stud center and a true #1 WR we are a different team on offense.
there are 4 areas the eagles firmly outclassed nyg
Jerry Reese called, he says he wants his assessment Back
LOL
I understand what you are saying and I agree to a point, I mean none of our WR would start for Philly. Every robust position on an offense helps to make it go. But you are way undervaluing that Philly OL. Comparing them to the Giants OL is ludicrous. Just Kelce alone is a HUGE boon to that offense. They completely shut down our defense. They could have not thrown a pass all game and probably still dropped 31 points on us. If we add a stud center and a true #1 WR we are a different team on offense.
I think the Neal versus Johnson is a much bigger difference and impact. Agree with your general conclusion. When you watch the games you don't see the same OL's whatever the stats say.
Good points. But again I try and avoid putting too much stock in just one game. I analyze seasons and I don't believe the numbers lie. That's why we collect numbers. And in the baseline numbers on the season as a whole there wasn't a ton of difference between the productivity of the two OLs. However, there was a world 0 maybe even a universe - of difference between the numbers for the two team's elite receivers and the defenses.
And I asked the question of somebody above. I give you the choice: you can have the Eagles OL or Brown and Smith. Think about it.
My reasoning is this would help the Giants when they faced the more challenging D's that made the offense more challenging to succeed. The OL showed its warts here.
So facing one of the upper tier fronts Philly's OL would help this challenge. First reason is I would still be able to run the ball. In the fewer poor down/distance scenarios I feel that OL would offer Jones better protection to allow our more limited WR's to work open. The overall running success would help create balance and keep D's guessing with both options more open.
From a team perspective this would help the D with our limitations on that side. I think having a offense that could hold the ball longer TOP/play count would give them a better chance to maximize the talent they have.
Good points. But again I try and avoid putting too much stock in just one game. I analyze seasons and I don't believe the numbers lie. That's why we collect numbers. And in the baseline numbers on the season as a whole there wasn't a ton of difference between the productivity of the two OLs. However, there was a world 0 maybe even a universe - of difference between the numbers for the two team's elite receivers and the defenses.
Of course you use the whole season. Nobody's debating that one game tells all.
But surely would put more stock in assessing/comparing various OLs by more than simply sacks allowed and yards/carry.
Ton of metrics available, all pointing to the underlying support an OL provides an offense including but not limited to: total first downs, 3rd and 4th down conversion %s, yards produced per play, pressures and hurry %s, points produced, etc. And if you want to also utilize your eyes and watch NYG and Philly throughout the season, that would be fine as well.
No one should ever suggest that Philly doesn't have stronger WRs and that they also contribute to the above metrics. But to claim that the NYG and Eagle OLs are "comparable" (or that the Eagles OL is average) because they are both within 5 sacks allowed from one another is simply comical.
If the Giants don't get a number 1 WR next year (or excellent TE), and especially if SB goes, then next year no one should complain about how bad the offense will look.
OLinemen do not do wonders with awful skilled players surrounding them and a non-elite QB.
Buffalo traded their LT to get an elite QB, so I find it hard to believe Schoen would pass up a top end WR in the draft to take oline if the players are rated similarly
Look at how good the Eagles Oline are, and look how good the Cowboys Oline was against a strong 49ers defense?! If somebody in their Oline falls off, they never miss a beat?! Why can’t the Giants get there?! Like I always say, Defense wins you championships, but the Oline gets you there!
I really wish people would disabuse themselves of this notion that the Eagles have a dominant OL. Sure they had a dominant game against the Giants on the weekend, but on the season they were very average allowing 44 sacks (just 5 fewer than the Giants) while they averaged 4.6 yards in the run game LESS than the Giants did (4.8).
What the Eagles did have was a ridiculously dominant defence that had 4 guys with 11 or more sacks (we had none) and 70 sacks overall. They also forced 17 INTs - we had 6. They also had a dominant passing attack with two receivers with over 1,200 receiving yards and 18 TD receptions between them, more than we had total. They also had 41 big plays between them whereas the Giants had a team total of 28.
I don't agree how you are representing this at all. Philly OL was definitely dominant. Isn't Philly among the lowest in in being hurried/knocked down?
If they are and you add that to how they run the ball and overall the team passed for over 4,000 yards how can this be construed as "not dominant" or "only 1 game?"
And by the way, Philly had TWO dominant games against the Giants. And overall the Giants defense wasn't that bad, was it?
we can find the lunch pail types. Find the star. That is 10% of a unit. We aren't that far away unless you think 1 star is very hard to find. Maybe it is.
We aren't 5-6 great players away. We have a core. We need 1-2 difference makers. 1-2 of those make the world of difference.
We are much further away that you represent. Much further. I'd wish you would be right but imo you're way off.
I never said the Giants and Eagles OLs were comparable. I said their baseline stats were comparable because they are! Maybe there are other stats out there that show there is a much wider discrepancy that somebody can cherry pick but to what end. And again I just find it hard to believe that a team that is 13th in the league in yards per rush and 22nd in sacks allowed has a 'dominant' OL. Those numbers just don't compute.
But that wasn't the point I was trying to make at all. The fact is the Eagles were not 14-3 this year and are hosting the NFC championship game Sunday because of their OL. It is because of their terrific defense and explosive playmakers. And if people can't see that well there is nothing more I can say on the topic. The one thing I can guarantee if you asked all 32 GMs in the league whether they'd rather have the Eagles OL or their skill people it'd be 32-0 in a heart beat for the latter.
You do this for a living and I'm a guy on my couch with a keyboard. But I'm not sure I agree with you. I do agree that the Eagles have two elite WRs and a very good TE. But I think their QB and RBs are nothing special and look special because of their OL. I think if you swapped the WRs, TEs, QBs and RBs to the opposite teams Saturday night the score would have been the same and I think if you swapped the defenses the Eagles still would have won because the Giants OL can't pass block any team well.
I was heartened by Joe Scheon's comments today. I took them to mean he knows how weak the middle of the Giants OL and DL/ILBs are and that those positions are the top priority to upgrade this off season.
I never said the Giants and Eagles OLs were comparable. I said their baseline stats were comparable because they are! Maybe there are other stats out there that show there is a much wider discrepancy that somebody can cherry pick but to what end. And again I just find it hard to believe that a team that is 13th in the league in yards per rush and 22nd in sacks allowed has a 'dominant' OL. Those numbers just don't compute.
Quote:
"I analyze seasons and I don't believe the numbers lie. That's why we collect numbers. And in the baseline numbers on the season as a whole there wasn't a ton of difference between the productivity of the two OLs."
The above is your quote. Apologies if we took you out of context that you weren't indeed comparing the two team's OLs but it seemed fairly obvious.
Also would suggest if you all are collecting that many numbers to analyze this topic, that boiling OL assessment all down to just Sacks and Yards/Carry is the definition of cherry-picking.
I never said the Giants and Eagles OLs were comparable. I said their baseline stats were comparable because they are! Maybe there are other stats out there that show there is a much wider discrepancy that somebody can cherry pick but to what end. And again I just find it hard to believe that a team that is 13th in the league in yards per rush and 22nd in sacks allowed has a 'dominant' OL. Those numbers just don't compute.
But that wasn't the point I was trying to make at all. The fact is the Eagles were not 14-3 this year and are hosting the NFC championship game Sunday because of their OL. It is because of their terrific defense and explosive playmakers. And if people can't see that well there is nothing more I can say on the topic. The one thing I can guarantee if you asked all 32 GMs in the league whether they'd rather have the Eagles OL or their skill people it'd be 32-0 in a heart beat for the latter.
Should be a really cool off-season
Again IMO I don't agree with how you are representing things. You did compare the two teams OLInes - this is what you said
"The reality is that based on their stats for the season there actually wasn't a huge difference between the Eagles OL and ours. They gave up 44 sacks, we gave up 49; they averaged 4.6 YPC rushing; we averaged 4.8."
How is that not a comparison?
Further you are the one cherry-picking the sack stat only and ignoring "hurries/knockdowns" etc. Then you are throwing out there the one stat you want highlight and ignore others and end your comment with a comment "to what end." How is hurries and knockdowns not important and only sacks is?
Hey, you guys got other stats put 'em out there. The two I quoted are not cherry picked, they are baseline stats (in fact they are the only OL related stats on ESPN for example). And in those stats - the only ones I actually looked at - there wasn't a ton of difference.
But its totally beside the point. I couldn't care less about trying to compare the Giants and Eagles OLs. In fact I couldn't care less about the Eagles OL. And to take a page out of Joe Schoen's presser earlier today I am pretty much done with 2022 and I'm onto 2023.
That said, there is no question that the Giants need to upgrade the OL. Quite simply 49 sacks and a QB hit rate of 25% are way too high. However, my own sense is that the Giants should be able to work something out in the middle of the OL with some combination of the young guys they have and maybe adding a couple of vet FA (if 76 and 64 don't return.) My greater concern would be Neal who was drafted 5th overall to lock down RT but too often looked more like he was leading the jailbreak! Might not be a bad idea to also consider adding a mid-priced vet OT as a little insurance at the position.
However, that said, the Giants can add all the Pro Bowl OL in the world and they are not going to compete with the elite teams until they get some explosive playmakers in the passing game and get a little more disruptive defending the pass because that's the way the NFL is played these days. The good news in the latter regard is that we do have some talent on the DL (although it certainly wouldn't hurt to add more) and can they get healthy and play to their potential.
Nothing suggests he needs a push from a attitude or effort standpoint but they need to get better production from that spot regardless and having capable backups in the event of injury should be a goal regardless. You have insurance in case he doesn't advance.
The issue this year was Jones often faced pressure from the inside and outside against better teams imv.
Agree on the pass rushers and the edge. What also helps that is stopping the run so they get more opportunities to create havoc. That was another very problematic area.
Hey, you guys got other stats put 'em out there. The two I quoted are not cherry picked, they are baseline stats (in fact they are the only OL related stats on ESPN for example). And in those stats - the only ones I actually looked at - there wasn't a ton of difference.
But its totally beside the point. I couldn't care less about trying to compare the Giants and Eagles OLs. In fact I couldn't care less about the Eagles OL. And to take a page out of Joe Schoen's presser earlier today I am pretty much done with 2022 and I'm onto 2023.
That said, there is no question that the Giants need to upgrade the OL. Quite simply 49 sacks and a QB hit rate of 25% are way too high. However, my own sense is that the Giants should be able to work something out in the middle of the OL with some combination of the young guys they have and maybe adding a couple of vet FA (if 76 and 64 don't return.) My greater concern would be Neal who was drafted 5th overall to lock down RT but too often looked more like he was leading the jailbreak! Might not be a bad idea to also consider adding a mid-priced vet OT as a little insurance at the position.
However, that said, the Giants can add all the Pro Bowl OL in the world and they are not going to compete with the elite teams until they get some explosive playmakers in the passing game and get a little more disruptive defending the pass because that's the way the NFL is played these days. The good news in the latter regard is that we do have some talent on the DL (although it certainly wouldn't hurt to add more) and can they get healthy and play to their potential.
+1 overall her Colin. I agree with you enitriely on this. Yes they need WR's. That';s huge goign forward.
As far as stats I got this from ESPN though tit's only 16 games.
Hey, you guys got other stats put 'em out there. The two I quoted are not cherry picked, they are baseline stats (in fact they are the only OL related stats on ESPN for example). And in those stats - the only ones I actually looked at - there wasn't a ton of difference.
But its totally beside the point. I couldn't care less about trying to compare the Giants and Eagles OLs. In fact I couldn't care less about the Eagles OL. And to take a page out of Joe Schoen's presser earlier today I am pretty much done with 2022 and I'm onto 2023.
That said, there is no question that the Giants need to upgrade the OL. Quite simply 49 sacks and a QB hit rate of 25% are way too high. However, my own sense is that the Giants should be able to work something out in the middle of the OL with some combination of the young guys they have and maybe adding a couple of vet FA (if 76 and 64 don't return.) My greater concern would be Neal who was drafted 5th overall to lock down RT but too often looked more like he was leading the jailbreak! Might not be a bad idea to also consider adding a mid-priced vet OT as a little insurance at the position.
However, that said, the Giants can add all the Pro Bowl OL in the world and they are not going to compete with the elite teams until they get some explosive playmakers in the passing game and get a little more disruptive defending the pass because that's the way the NFL is played these days. The good news in the latter regard is that we do have some talent on the DL (although it certainly wouldn't hurt to add more) and can they get healthy and play to their potential.
I can get behind the way you have it stated here. I thought sure we were going to be running Devonta Smith out for us every week, so that hurts even more. I guess my final comment would be... Instead of choosing between the Philly OL or their WRs... can I have a guy or two from both squads? :)
Putting aside the overriding concept that GMs draft players
not positions for a minute. And not to downplay what improvement was seen this year on the field, but this is still a fairly comprehensive rebuilding process the NYG are smack dab in the middle of.
With that said, Schoen is best served to focus on the highest value positions when considering the usage of the Day 1 & Day 2 picks for this year and forseeable future. That typically means (assuming DJ is at least tagged) WR, CB, Edge Rusher and OT.
It doesn't mean ILB, DT, Interior OL and TE units don't need investment or shouldn't be in play when our early picks come around and a special prospect is sitting at the top (or very close to) of the board at one or more of these positions. That's when your tiered approach needs to have some discriminating factors that help drive the GM to the overall best pick for the situation.
Jerry Reese called, he says he wants his assessment Back
LOL
I understand what you are saying and I agree to a point, I mean none of our WR would start for Philly. Every robust position on an offense helps to make it go. But you are way undervaluing that Philly OL. Comparing them to the Giants OL is ludicrous. Just Kelce alone is a HUGE boon to that offense. They completely shut down our defense. They could have not thrown a pass all game and probably still dropped 31 points on us. If we add a stud center and a true #1 WR we are a different team on offense.
I think the Neal versus Johnson is a much bigger difference and impact. Agree with your general conclusion. When you watch the games you don't see the same OL's whatever the stats say.
I agree LoS, but I am projecting some steps forward for Neal at RT with his rookie year under his belt.
It's so true and why a day later I have been re-thinking my take on OL
I had been saying they return a healthy Ezeudu, McKethan, Bredeson, Feliciano, and Gates to compete for the 3 interior positions and draft an interior OL in the first 3 rounds. I think if Feliciano is moved off OC and the 3 best at those respective positions win out, we will have a good OL. But, we need a great OL.
The flip side is having a dominant front on Defense. We have 2 dominant DTs with no true DEs or OLBs. We have EDGE, which may be the trend, but 2 EDGE and 2 DTs isn't stopping the run and it wasn't consistent in getting pressure either. I think a tweak to the scheme to incorporate more traditional fronts is needed. We don't have the DEs for a 3-4 and we certainly don't have the LBs. That includes OLB. I'm sorry, but LT and Banks weren't EDGE, they were OLB and there is a difference.
and look at this conversation alone. And reflect on / realize how far away they are from a credible contending roster.
"Anything can happen" I know I know
But this is why I think they're yearS away
Couldn’t disagree more, my friend.. a few key pieces, this coaching staff..No reason why we can’t contend next season. How far we go is always dependent on the usual disclaimers
Not predicting how this will go but there are options....
Cap currently is third in NFL space at around 60M
Some notable potential options for further space...
Leo extension 13.5M
Golladay cut 13.5M
Adoree extension 8M
Lawrence extension 9M
Current cap 60M which can go up to a quite robust 104M with all 4 of those moves. 80-90 with 2 or 3.
Spitballing here and they probably won't do all this but they could fit it under the cap conceivably....or maybe they accomplish the top 4 on the list and go bargain shoping for the rest?
1.Barkley 10M 2023 cap hit
2.Jones 22M 2023 cap hit (For reference Daks was 19M 1st year)
3.Trade for a bigtime wide reciever est. Cap hit 25M
4. Sign a CB off the market Byron Jones, Jamal Dean, Peters, 15-18M
5. Another Offensive lineman with OT/OG versatility 12-15M
6. ILB upgrade to hold the fort until Beavers, McFadden are ready 8M
Go BPA in the draft at the remaining higher need positions.
I really wish people would disabuse themselves of this notion that the Eagles have a dominant OL. Sure they had a dominant game against the Giants on the weekend, but on the season they were very average allowing 44 sacks (just 5 fewer than the Giants) while they averaged 4.6 yards in the run game LESS than the Giants did (4.8).
What the Eagles did have was a ridiculously dominant defence that had 4 guys with 11 or more sacks (we had none) and 70 sacks overall. They also forced 17 INTs - we had 6. They also had a dominant passing attack with two receivers with over 1,200 receiving yards and 18 TD receptions between them, more than we had total. They also had 41 big plays between them whereas the Giants had a team total of 28.
Maybe the reason we rushed for more yards per carry than Philly is because we have Barkley and they don't.
Hope for the best, but actually prep like the worst could happen.
The Bengals have Joe Burrow. Jones might have improved this year, but he is not Burrow.
Quote:
Johnny et al: One of my rules for analyzing sports is don't make judgments about a player or team based on one game. The sample size is just too small. The reality is that based on their stats for the season there actually wasn't a huge difference between the Eagles OL and ours. They gave up 44 sacks, we gave up 49; they averaged 4.6 YPC rushing; we averaged 4.8.
There are also other stats aren't there? About how often Hurts was pressured vs Jones?
Quote:
You just need players to be able to perform.
The Bengals have Joe Burrow. Jones might have improved this year, but he is not Burrow.
The Bengals were playing an elite team. You saw what happened to Mahomes in the Super Bowl vs Tampa Bay.
And did Joe Burrow also help block in the running game? Cincis RB's ran for 138 yards.
This. We have to let the guys we drafted develop. The Eagles dominant oline wasn’t built in a year.
There are A LOT of needs on this team, using all of our premium assets on the OL wouldn’t be wise IMO.
Quote:
Dave: sounds like you and I could get a pretty good debate going all on our own. I have a somewhat different take. One doesn't want to discount the importance of the IOL and LB but in the end those positions don't win games. And my sense is that with some combination of the young guys they already have on the IOL and maybe a couple mid-range FAs for depth (if #s 76 and 64 don't come back) they'll be good enough upfront. I'd also be tempted to bring in a vet FA OT for depth and competition for Neal especially if he doesn't pick it up. Same story at LB.
But the best teams in the NFL do one of two things: they almost all throw the ball really well or disrupt the other team's pass offense. I really think that the key for the Giants going forward is just how good the DL can be because their is a ton of potential. Think the Giants won ten games this year with Williams, Thibo and Ojulari combining for just 11 sacks when quite literally each has the potential to post that many on their own. As I have said elsewhere I would be sorely tempted to go after someone like USC's Tuipulotu either in the first or by trading up in the 2nd if I went WR in the first. He could play a DE in early downs to give you a whole lot more size upfront and then kick inside on passing downs.
But most importantly give me a couple of good receiving options either however you do it and combined with Jones, Saquon and Bellinger we would have a very competitive offense to boot.
I really believe its going to fun going forward in these next 3-4 years.
Colin, unfortunately we are closer to the same page than you think. WR is my top need for NYG. CB is second. Pass rusher is 3rd.
But I bring up OL because if there is the right value, I am going in the direction. I will not overlook OL just because I need a WR more. A team like NYG needs to take value where it is given. My point of that tweet was simple.
If NYG can get an OL like PHI - every player on that team works better. PHI built that think for years and then in a matter of 2 years they trade up for a round 1 WR and then trade a 1st rounder for an established WR. They have the best OC in the game and just drafted his replacement. PHI is a team that knows their OL is making everyone else look better.
If you want to use CIN as an example - show me where Burrow and Chase are.
If the Giants don't get a number 1 WR next year (or excellent TE), and especially if SB goes, then next year no one should complain about how bad the offense will look.
OLinemen do not do wonders with awful skilled players surrounding them and a non-elite QB.
I think it’s very possible that next year’s team will be a better team with a worse record. All we can do is put our faith in the Schoen/Daboll partnership and trust that they identify the right players in the draft and FA.
In particular also at WR. In particular also the DL not getting pressure. In particular maybe a RB if SB goes. In particular another very good quality CB.
If the Giants don't get a number 1 WR next year (or excellent TE), and especially if SB goes, then next year no one should complain about how bad the offense will look.
OLinemen do not do wonders with awful skilled players surrounding them and a non-elite QB.
Buffalo traded their LT to get an elite QB, so I find it hard to believe Schoen would pass up a top end WR in the draft to take oline if the players are rated similarly
Two other things I think have contributed to it. The college game and the newer CBA. The college game has moved to a lot of spread and more exotic pass offenses. More WR's are now seen but how OL are being developed has also changed.
The CBA has very restrictive rules with hitting and practice time. I don't this helps either.
Quote:
wrong that doesn't have to mean using premium draft picks.
Giants have already spent a #4 and #7 overall pick and 2 3rd round picks, just from the current roster on the OL.
At some point you have to get OL contribution from value picks.
The Eagles and Cowboys have invested more in their olines and it shows.
The Eagles have NOT invested more in their offensive line than the Giants. That is categorically false.
The Eagles have just acquired better offensive line talent than the Giants (using lesser resources), and developed/retained those players to form a dominant offensive line. But if you're just looking at the resources invested in the offensive line, the Giants have spent more FA money and draft picks on the OL than the Eagles.
Two other things I think have contributed to it. The college game and the newer CBA. The college game has moved to a lot of spread and more exotic pass offenses. More WR's are now seen but how OL are being developed has also changed.
The CBA has very restrictive rules with hitting and practice time. I don't this helps either.
These factors impact all NFL teams, don't they?
Quote:
Certainly a valid consideration regarding a systemic issue identifying good OL.
Two other things I think have contributed to it. The college game and the newer CBA. The college game has moved to a lot of spread and more exotic pass offenses. More WR's are now seen but how OL are being developed has also changed.
The CBA has very restrictive rules with hitting and practice time. I don't this helps either.
These factors impact all NFL teams, don't they?
It does. The impact is not the same for every team though and the variable with it is coaching and how the offense plays from a schematic point of view.
What the Eagles did have was a ridiculously dominant defence that had 4 guys with 11 or more sacks (we had none) and 70 sacks overall. They also forced 17 INTs - we had 6. They also had a dominant passing attack with two receivers with over 1,200 receiving yards and 18 TD receptions between them, more than we had total. They also had 41 big plays between them whereas the Giants had a team total of 28.
Quote:
In comment 16010026 Lines of Scrimmage said:
Quote:
Certainly a valid consideration regarding a systemic issue identifying good OL.
Two other things I think have contributed to it. The college game and the newer CBA. The college game has moved to a lot of spread and more exotic pass offenses. More WR's are now seen but how OL are being developed has also changed.
The CBA has very restrictive rules with hitting and practice time. I don't this helps either.
These factors impact all NFL teams, don't they?
It does. The impact is not the same for every team though and the variable with it is coaching and how the offense plays from a schematic point of view.
Then I would argue that teams should play whatever scheme minimizes those factors since that seems to represent an opportunity for a significant competitive advantage. It would seem to be the height of stubbornness to insist on running a system (in any industry) where your feeder system does not provide adequate manpower and talent.
We aren't 5-6 great players away. We have a core. We need 1-2 difference makers. 1-2 of those make the world of difference.
If NYG can get an OL like PHI - every player on that team works better. PHI built that think for years and then in a matter of 2 years they trade up for a round 1 WR and then trade a 1st rounder for an established WR. They have the best OC in the game and just drafted his replacement. PHI is a team that knows their OL is making everyone else look better....
We aren't 5-6 great players away. We have a core. We need 1-2 difference makers. 1-2 of those make the world of difference.
Agreed. And keep churning / bettering the bottom of the roster.
He'd go a long way to adding more of a presence at the LOS, too. He's got the added benefit of helping the blocking and adding a weapon.
And to suggest that they were able to produce this Dominate Passing Attack but with average All-Pro/Pro Bowl guys pass protecting along the way.
I wish we had those kind of average guys.
LOL
I understand what you are saying and I agree to a point, I mean none of our WR would start for Philly. Every robust position on an offense helps to make it go. But you are way undervaluing that Philly OL. Comparing them to the Giants OL is ludicrous. Just Kelce alone is a HUGE boon to that offense. They completely shut down our defense. They could have not thrown a pass all game and probably still dropped 31 points on us. If we add a stud center and a true #1 WR we are a different team on offense.
they have 2 stud 1k+ yard first round WRs who cost 1st round picks. giants have 0.
they have 4 10+ sack DL. 2 got 10m+ aav as FA, 1 first rd pick, 1 4th rd pick. giants may have 2 or 3 already but a lot less depth.
they have one of if not the best OL in football. nyg have invested but need more.
they have 2 big $ stud corners. nyg have 1.
last year the nyg used their first 5 (day 1/2) draft picks on DL, OL, WR, OL, CB.
they have 4 day 1/2 picks this year and it wouldnt be a surprise if they pick each of these 4 positions in whatever order value lines up best.
im sure they will hit all 5 spots in UFA also whether it's 1 year deals or multi-year deals.
LOL
I understand what you are saying and I agree to a point, I mean none of our WR would start for Philly. Every robust position on an offense helps to make it go. But you are way undervaluing that Philly OL. Comparing them to the Giants OL is ludicrous. Just Kelce alone is a HUGE boon to that offense. They completely shut down our defense. They could have not thrown a pass all game and probably still dropped 31 points on us. If we add a stud center and a true #1 WR we are a different team on offense.
I think the Neal versus Johnson is a much bigger difference and impact. Agree with your general conclusion. When you watch the games you don't see the same OL's whatever the stats say.
And I asked the question of somebody above. I give you the choice: you can have the Eagles OL or Brown and Smith. Think about it.
So facing one of the upper tier fronts Philly's OL would help this challenge. First reason is I would still be able to run the ball. In the fewer poor down/distance scenarios I feel that OL would offer Jones better protection to allow our more limited WR's to work open. The overall running success would help create balance and keep D's guessing with both options more open.
From a team perspective this would help the D with our limitations on that side. I think having a offense that could hold the ball longer TOP/play count would give them a better chance to maximize the talent they have.
Big Facts!!
Of course you use the whole season. Nobody's debating that one game tells all.
But surely would put more stock in assessing/comparing various OLs by more than simply sacks allowed and yards/carry.
Ton of metrics available, all pointing to the underlying support an OL provides an offense including but not limited to: total first downs, 3rd and 4th down conversion %s, yards produced per play, pressures and hurry %s, points produced, etc. And if you want to also utilize your eyes and watch NYG and Philly throughout the season, that would be fine as well.
No one should ever suggest that Philly doesn't have stronger WRs and that they also contribute to the above metrics. But to claim that the NYG and Eagle OLs are "comparable" (or that the Eagles OL is average) because they are both within 5 sacks allowed from one another is simply comical.
Quote:
If the Giants don't get a number 1 WR next year (or excellent TE), and especially if SB goes, then next year no one should complain about how bad the offense will look.
OLinemen do not do wonders with awful skilled players surrounding them and a non-elite QB.
Buffalo traded their LT to get an elite QB, so I find it hard to believe Schoen would pass up a top end WR in the draft to take oline if the players are rated similarly
+1
What the Eagles did have was a ridiculously dominant defence that had 4 guys with 11 or more sacks (we had none) and 70 sacks overall. They also forced 17 INTs - we had 6. They also had a dominant passing attack with two receivers with over 1,200 receiving yards and 18 TD receptions between them, more than we had total. They also had 41 big plays between them whereas the Giants had a team total of 28.
I don't agree how you are representing this at all. Philly OL was definitely dominant. Isn't Philly among the lowest in in being hurried/knocked down?
If they are and you add that to how they run the ball and overall the team passed for over 4,000 yards how can this be construed as "not dominant" or "only 1 game?"
And by the way, Philly had TWO dominant games against the Giants. And overall the Giants defense wasn't that bad, was it?
We aren't 5-6 great players away. We have a core. We need 1-2 difference makers. 1-2 of those make the world of difference.
We are much further away that you represent. Much further. I'd wish you would be right but imo you're way off.
But that wasn't the point I was trying to make at all. The fact is the Eagles were not 14-3 this year and are hosting the NFC championship game Sunday because of their OL. It is because of their terrific defense and explosive playmakers. And if people can't see that well there is nothing more I can say on the topic. The one thing I can guarantee if you asked all 32 GMs in the league whether they'd rather have the Eagles OL or their skill people it'd be 32-0 in a heart beat for the latter.
Should be a really cool off-season
I was heartened by Joe Scheon's comments today. I took them to mean he knows how weak the middle of the Giants OL and DL/ILBs are and that those positions are the top priority to upgrade this off season.
The above is your quote. Apologies if we took you out of context that you weren't indeed comparing the two team's OLs but it seemed fairly obvious.
Also would suggest if you all are collecting that many numbers to analyze this topic, that boiling OL assessment all down to just Sacks and Yards/Carry is the definition of cherry-picking.
But that wasn't the point I was trying to make at all. The fact is the Eagles were not 14-3 this year and are hosting the NFC championship game Sunday because of their OL. It is because of their terrific defense and explosive playmakers. And if people can't see that well there is nothing more I can say on the topic. The one thing I can guarantee if you asked all 32 GMs in the league whether they'd rather have the Eagles OL or their skill people it'd be 32-0 in a heart beat for the latter.
Should be a really cool off-season
Again IMO I don't agree with how you are representing things. You did compare the two teams OLInes - this is what you said
"The reality is that based on their stats for the season there actually wasn't a huge difference between the Eagles OL and ours. They gave up 44 sacks, we gave up 49; they averaged 4.6 YPC rushing; we averaged 4.8."
How is that not a comparison?
Further you are the one cherry-picking the sack stat only and ignoring "hurries/knockdowns" etc. Then you are throwing out there the one stat you want highlight and ignore others and end your comment with a comment "to what end." How is hurries and knockdowns not important and only sacks is?
So what you are doing - that's cherry-picking.
But its totally beside the point. I couldn't care less about trying to compare the Giants and Eagles OLs. In fact I couldn't care less about the Eagles OL. And to take a page out of Joe Schoen's presser earlier today I am pretty much done with 2022 and I'm onto 2023.
That said, there is no question that the Giants need to upgrade the OL. Quite simply 49 sacks and a QB hit rate of 25% are way too high. However, my own sense is that the Giants should be able to work something out in the middle of the OL with some combination of the young guys they have and maybe adding a couple of vet FA (if 76 and 64 don't return.) My greater concern would be Neal who was drafted 5th overall to lock down RT but too often looked more like he was leading the jailbreak! Might not be a bad idea to also consider adding a mid-priced vet OT as a little insurance at the position.
However, that said, the Giants can add all the Pro Bowl OL in the world and they are not going to compete with the elite teams until they get some explosive playmakers in the passing game and get a little more disruptive defending the pass because that's the way the NFL is played these days. The good news in the latter regard is that we do have some talent on the DL (although it certainly wouldn't hurt to add more) and can they get healthy and play to their potential.
The issue this year was Jones often faced pressure from the inside and outside against better teams imv.
Agree on the pass rushers and the edge. What also helps that is stopping the run so they get more opportunities to create havoc. That was another very problematic area.
But its totally beside the point. I couldn't care less about trying to compare the Giants and Eagles OLs. In fact I couldn't care less about the Eagles OL. And to take a page out of Joe Schoen's presser earlier today I am pretty much done with 2022 and I'm onto 2023.
That said, there is no question that the Giants need to upgrade the OL. Quite simply 49 sacks and a QB hit rate of 25% are way too high. However, my own sense is that the Giants should be able to work something out in the middle of the OL with some combination of the young guys they have and maybe adding a couple of vet FA (if 76 and 64 don't return.) My greater concern would be Neal who was drafted 5th overall to lock down RT but too often looked more like he was leading the jailbreak! Might not be a bad idea to also consider adding a mid-priced vet OT as a little insurance at the position.
However, that said, the Giants can add all the Pro Bowl OL in the world and they are not going to compete with the elite teams until they get some explosive playmakers in the passing game and get a little more disruptive defending the pass because that's the way the NFL is played these days. The good news in the latter regard is that we do have some talent on the DL (although it certainly wouldn't hurt to add more) and can they get healthy and play to their potential.
+1 overall her Colin. I agree with you enitriely on this. Yes they need WR's. That';s huge goign forward.
As far as stats I got this from ESPN though tit's only 16 games.
https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/advanced-stats-qb.php
Hurts in 14 games got knocked down 22 times. And he got hurried 34 times. I prorated everything and the Eagles are near the top.
Jones had to deal with brutal numbers. 53 knockdowns and 49 hurries plus his sack numbers.
Giants need a number 1 WR badly.
The Kncokdows
But its totally beside the point. I couldn't care less about trying to compare the Giants and Eagles OLs. In fact I couldn't care less about the Eagles OL. And to take a page out of Joe Schoen's presser earlier today I am pretty much done with 2022 and I'm onto 2023.
That said, there is no question that the Giants need to upgrade the OL. Quite simply 49 sacks and a QB hit rate of 25% are way too high. However, my own sense is that the Giants should be able to work something out in the middle of the OL with some combination of the young guys they have and maybe adding a couple of vet FA (if 76 and 64 don't return.) My greater concern would be Neal who was drafted 5th overall to lock down RT but too often looked more like he was leading the jailbreak! Might not be a bad idea to also consider adding a mid-priced vet OT as a little insurance at the position.
However, that said, the Giants can add all the Pro Bowl OL in the world and they are not going to compete with the elite teams until they get some explosive playmakers in the passing game and get a little more disruptive defending the pass because that's the way the NFL is played these days. The good news in the latter regard is that we do have some talent on the DL (although it certainly wouldn't hurt to add more) and can they get healthy and play to their potential.
I can get behind the way you have it stated here. I thought sure we were going to be running Devonta Smith out for us every week, so that hurts even more. I guess my final comment would be... Instead of choosing between the Philly OL or their WRs... can I have a guy or two from both squads? :)
With that said, Schoen is best served to focus on the highest value positions when considering the usage of the Day 1 & Day 2 picks for this year and forseeable future. That typically means (assuming DJ is at least tagged) WR, CB, Edge Rusher and OT.
It doesn't mean ILB, DT, Interior OL and TE units don't need investment or shouldn't be in play when our early picks come around and a special prospect is sitting at the top (or very close to) of the board at one or more of these positions. That's when your tiered approach needs to have some discriminating factors that help drive the GM to the overall best pick for the situation.
Quote:
Jerry Reese called, he says he wants his assessment Back
LOL
I understand what you are saying and I agree to a point, I mean none of our WR would start for Philly. Every robust position on an offense helps to make it go. But you are way undervaluing that Philly OL. Comparing them to the Giants OL is ludicrous. Just Kelce alone is a HUGE boon to that offense. They completely shut down our defense. They could have not thrown a pass all game and probably still dropped 31 points on us. If we add a stud center and a true #1 WR we are a different team on offense.
I think the Neal versus Johnson is a much bigger difference and impact. Agree with your general conclusion. When you watch the games you don't see the same OL's whatever the stats say.
I agree LoS, but I am projecting some steps forward for Neal at RT with his rookie year under his belt.
The flip side is having a dominant front on Defense. We have 2 dominant DTs with no true DEs or OLBs. We have EDGE, which may be the trend, but 2 EDGE and 2 DTs isn't stopping the run and it wasn't consistent in getting pressure either. I think a tweak to the scheme to incorporate more traditional fronts is needed. We don't have the DEs for a 3-4 and we certainly don't have the LBs. That includes OLB. I'm sorry, but LT and Banks weren't EDGE, they were OLB and there is a difference.
Quote:
and look at this conversation alone. And reflect on / realize how far away they are from a credible contending roster.
"Anything can happen" I know I know
But this is why I think they're yearS away
Couldn’t disagree more, my friend.. a few key pieces, this coaching staff..No reason why we can’t contend next season. How far we go is always dependent on the usual disclaimers
Not predicting how this will go but there are options....
Cap currently is third in NFL space at around 60M
Some notable potential options for further space...
Leo extension 13.5M
Golladay cut 13.5M
Adoree extension 8M
Lawrence extension 9M
Current cap 60M which can go up to a quite robust 104M with all 4 of those moves. 80-90 with 2 or 3.
Spitballing here and they probably won't do all this but they could fit it under the cap conceivably....or maybe they accomplish the top 4 on the list and go bargain shoping for the rest?
1.Barkley 10M 2023 cap hit
2.Jones 22M 2023 cap hit (For reference Daks was 19M 1st year)
3.Trade for a bigtime wide reciever est. Cap hit 25M
4. Sign a CB off the market Byron Jones, Jamal Dean, Peters, 15-18M
5. Another Offensive lineman with OT/OG versatility 12-15M
6. ILB upgrade to hold the fort until Beavers, McFadden are ready 8M
Go BPA in the draft at the remaining higher need positions.
What the Eagles did have was a ridiculously dominant defence that had 4 guys with 11 or more sacks (we had none) and 70 sacks overall. They also forced 17 INTs - we had 6. They also had a dominant passing attack with two receivers with over 1,200 receiving yards and 18 TD receptions between them, more than we had total. They also had 41 big plays between them whereas the Giants had a team total of 28.
Maybe the reason we rushed for more yards per carry than Philly is because we have Barkley and they don't.
Not every player who played well this year is going to play as good or better next year. They might even get hurt and miss a season.
Not every rookie drafted is going to fix their position.
Not every player who played poorly this year is going to be fixed next year
Smart operators hope for the best and prepare as if you're set for the worst.