Poles is someone I've monitored since he was a finalist with NYG during their 2022 search. Poles had two bad seasons in Chicago where Schoen had 2022 which resulted in the 25th pick in the draft.
The big move Poles made was passing on Young and Stroud to trade down and net what ended up being the first overall pick in 2024 to draft Caleb Williams.
Our BBI favorite Mike Lombardi has been ripping Poles for awhile saying he should be getting heat with Eberflus. He's gone heavy into skill positions while the OL looks like a mess for Williams. Eberflus a likely candidate with Pederson for first HC fired.
There is a ton of talent in the skill positions, but hasn't produced thus far. Very early of course. Do you like the approach Poles has taken?
pretty good actually. 4/5 same starters just swapped mckenzie out to retirement and beatty back in.
But ultimately he'll be judged on tbe team's success. And the team's success is going to come down to how good Caleb Willoams is. If he's good, they have and good QB, good D, and good receivers. They can focus everything on OL. That's a team that can win a Super Bowl. Nobody is going to care about the Claypool trade or the Swift contact if the Bears are regularly winning division titles and competing deep into the playoffs. If Williams isn't good, they'll just be a middle of the pack team and Poles bad moves will be under the microscope.
the moves he made matter a lot less than whether or not eberflus is a good coach or not. caleb is downstream from that because the coaching decision is going to dictate that he gets inherited to a new head coach who didnt select him just as happened in carolina.
they had endless cap space to add 4 top of market players from outside (edmunds, allen, sweat, moore) and still project to have another 70m+ free next year. that's also with big extensions for kmet and jaylon johnson.
they controlled the first overall pick back to back years to take their pick from 6 different Qbs who were drafted top 4 in their respective years. young, stroud, ar15, caleb, daniels, maye. plus 2 other top 10 picks (wright, odunze).
accumulating all those assets is great but no matter how good they picked if there's a coaching change there will be some breakage.
meanwhile across the division kwesi seems way ahead with sam darnold as his qb. all his first round picks are hurt (or waived), cousins got hurt then walked for a 2025 comp pick, hunter too, and all they've done in the 3 years is compete. because he got the koc pick correct.
At the risk of opening the saga of how the end was made, I think it's worth noting the line was certainly on the older side, but pretty good in 2012.
And then Locklear, Snee, and Baas never play a healthy game as Giants again.
I think 2013 looks a lot different with Pugh, Boothe, healthy Baas, healthy Snee, Beatty.
At the risk of opening the saga of how the end was made, I think it's worth noting the line was certainly on the older side, but pretty good in 2012.
And then Locklear, Snee, and Baas never play a healthy game as Giants again.
I think 2013 looks a lot different with Pugh, Boothe, healthy Baas, healthy Snee, Beatty.
the initial point remains - through the 2nd SB (and as it turns out the year after) while there was obviously more advanced age the OL had some remnants of a functional group. they were 9-7 in both 2011/2012 with a lot of the same guys starting almost every game.
as that group turned into musical chairs 2013-2015 it was a main reason they started sliding backwards. both lines of scrimmage got worse by a bigger margin than the explosiveness they added with obj.
At the risk of opening the saga of how the end was made, I think it's worth noting the line was certainly on the older side, but pretty good in 2012.
And then Locklear, Snee, and Baas never play a healthy game as Giants again.
I think 2013 looks a lot different with Pugh, Boothe, healthy Baas, healthy Snee, Beatty.
the initial point remains - through the 2nd SB (and as it turns out the year after) while there was obviously more advanced age the OL had some remnants of a functional group. they were 9-7 in both 2011/2012 with a lot of the same guys starting almost every game.
as that group turned into musical chairs 2013-2015 it was a main reason they started sliding backwards. both lines of scrimmage got worse by a bigger margin than the explosiveness they added with obj.
I think it's important to recognize the 2011 offensive line performed very badly in the regular season in both phases. And yet the Giants had a top 10 offense (with the worst rushing game in the league).
The offensive line upped their game from very bad to just bad in the playoffs, yet Manning had the most passing yards in playoff history. While the run game had variable output over those four games. The Giants couldn't move the ball on the ground against the 49ers in the rain, and Manning carried the team through the air.
Down the stretch in 2012 only one every day starter (not including the fill in Diehl starts when Locklear got hurt) from the 2008 high water remained, 30-year-old Chris Snee. And the offense output improved, including the offensive line performance.
Locklear/Boothe/Baas/Snee/Beatty was a rebuilt group from the 07/08 group. It was a bit of an older group, but it was a good group.
Then 3/5 of those players never played a full strength game as Giants ever again at 31 or younger.
Any OL the Giants put on the field from 2012 to today is not close to the last really good Giants OL. The only better player now on this OL who is as good or better than someone from that last very good OL is AT.
The Giants OL did improve at the end of the season and in the playoffs after WB was hurt. The running game was actually an under rated reason of why they won the SB.
The 2012 offensive line graded well, as per Eric on Li, and the offensive results reflected that. The Giants were the 6th best scoring team in the league, and were a much more balanced offensive than 2011. The Giants averaged 4.5 YPC vs. 3.5 YPC YoY.
I retired from football after the 8th grade.
Any quarterback will tell you having a strong offensive line across the board like the 2012 Giants did is better than having one very good player on a bad unit.
I prefer team over player. It's the ultimate team sport. That's why you never heard Coughlin or Parcells focus much on individual success.
QB is still the ultimate trump card. so Harbaugh can line up his big formations and pound the ball, but he'll be undone by Mahomes just like he was Eli, unless Herbert turns into that guy.
Don't get me wrong, a good running game helps a ton, but it can't be relied upon the win you 3 or 4 straight playoff games against the best competition. A good opposing QB usually ends up putting pressure on these teams by scoring early, and they panic and start abandoning the run, ie the Ravens last year.
Quote:
see you as someone who played the game and if so not very long Christian but let's not have another story. Dallas is playing a rookie LT who has struggled. Dak had enjoyed having a future HOF LT most of his career. As any QB would know, just having a quality LT is a big deal.
I retired from football after the 8th grade.
Any quarterback will tell you having a strong offensive line across the board like the 2012 Giants did is better than having one very good player on a bad unit.
I prefer team over player. It's the ultimate team sport. That's why you never heard Coughlin or Parcells focus much on individual success.
The 2012 line overall graded well but they had some disaster games (@Washington, Atlanta and Baltimore). Eli also had some disaster games (home against Pittsburgh, @Cincy). Couglin had some disaster games (losing on the road to a 4-12 Eagles team).
Like most of those 09-12 teams, they ended being less than the sum of their parts in the regular season.
The Colts without Manning in 2011 are a great example. Playoff team with him, worst team in the league without him. Dak has gone from MVP candidate last year to pedestrian early on with mediocre line play.
I suspect the post-Ty Law passing era is winding down and we'll see a renaissance in running the ball. And my bet is the Chiefs go get a feature back next year for instance.
I retired from football after the 8th grade.
Any quarterback will tell you having a strong offensive line across the board like the 2012 Giants did is better than having one very good player on a bad unit.
I prefer team over player. It's the ultimate team sport. That's why you never heard Coughlin or Parcells focus much on individual success.
The 2012 line overall graded well but they had some disaster games (@Washington, Atlanta and Baltimore). Eli also had some disaster games (home against Pittsburgh, @Cincy). Couglin had some disaster games (losing on the road to a 4-12 Eagles team).
Like most of those 09-12 teams, they ended being less than the sum of their parts in the regular season.
I agree, it wasn't a great overall team season. But the YoY improvement on the offensive line was plainly obvious.
I've always been left with a what if sense, with Nicks getting hurt early and Ballard getting hurt in the Super Bowl then claimed off waivers.
That 2011 pass catching group was special, and we never saw it fully in tact again.
The Colts without Manning in 2011 are a great example. Playoff team with him, worst team in the league without him. Dak has gone from MVP candidate last year to pedestrian early on with mediocre line play.
I suspect the post-Ty Law passing era is winding down and we'll see a renaissance in running the ball. And my bet is the Chiefs go get a feature back next year for instance.
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I think running the ball is very important for the regular season. 17 games provides plenty of scenarios where the passing game won't be there for various reasons, so you need another plan.
But even pre Ty Law/2004, you're still looking at outliers when non-top QBs win. McMahon-Simms-Williams than Hostetler-Rypien are runs that haven't been repeated in 30+ years.
That said, if it's one or the other, a team that can pass the ball well is in a clear statistical advantage.
A great example is the 2011 NFC championship game.
Giants won both SB's with a plus 10/9 advantage in rushing carries. In '07 they held the Pats to 2.6 ypc. Both SB's they had a big TOP advantage.
I think it's important to recognize the 2011 offensive line performed very badly in the regular season in both phases. And yet the Giants had a top 10 offense (with the worst rushing game in the league).
The offensive line upped their game from very bad to just bad in the playoffs, yet Manning had the most passing yards in playoff history. While the run game had variable output over those four games. The Giants couldn't move the ball on the ground against the 49ers in the rain, and Manning carried the team through the air.
Down the stretch in 2012 only one every day starter (not including the fill in Diehl starts when Locklear got hurt) from the 2008 high water remained, 30-year-old Chris Snee. And the offense output improved, including the offensive line performance.
Locklear/Boothe/Baas/Snee/Beatty was a rebuilt group from the 07/08 group. It was a bit of an older group, but it was a good group.
Then 3/5 of those players never played a full strength game as Giants ever again at 31 or younger.
are you trying to argue that the giants didnt do a bad job letting the OL collapse or that letting OL's collapse isn't important because 1 team went on a fairy tale run with a sub par OL?
that nyg team only won 9 games and would have missed the playoffs entirely if not for a jpp miracle fg deflection. they actually had a -6 point differential despite HOF coach/QB in his best season. i dont think it's a blueprint for greatness.
This thread's question was what do you think of Ryan Poles plan. If his plan was to under invest in the OL bc he thought it "important to recognize" the 2011 giants won despite a bad OL, i'd tell him it's a crappy plan that ignores the fact that the plan clearly wasnt sustainable since it directly collapsed the remaining years of said HOF coach/QB.
Then id ask him why when he was the Director of Player personnel in KC and they lost the 2020 SB because their OL fell apart to age (fisher, osemele, schwartz), Andy Reid immediately went out and invested massively in the OL with Orlando Brown, Joe Thuney, Kyle Long, Creed Humprey, Trey Smith, Daryl Williams. And he did so likely knowing they wouldnt have the money to keep Tyreek in 2022. And that since losing Tyreek they've won b2b super bowls while ranking as one of the best Ol's in football (pff has them top 7 in pass blocking each year since 2020). The chiefs quality OL is a lot less of an outlier among recent winning teams than the 2011 NYG OL.
QB is still the ultimate trump card. so Harbaugh can line up his big formations and pound the ball, but he'll be undone by Mahomes just like he was Eli, unless Herbert turns into that guy.
Don't get me wrong, a good running game helps a ton, but it can't be relied upon the win you 3 or 4 straight playoff games against the best competition. A good opposing QB usually ends up putting pressure on these teams by scoring early, and they panic and start abandoning the run, ie the Ravens last year.
I dont recall seeing a lot of talk about building an ol AND a running game over the last decade. In fact the mainstream consensus was negative about orienting towards a running game (Barkley). Dan Campbell gets brought up sometimes but he is basically the only example of a team who has done that. Maybe Kyle Shanahan. But both of those teams have explosive passing offenses too.
Building an OL that can protect a QB is a fundamental strategy that has stood the test of time for decades apart from trends shifting from run to pass. It's just gotten a lot harder to do (which is why good OL have gotten more expensive).
I'm sure we can all find examples where success was tilted one way or the other. The Giants don't make it to the Super Bowl if Eli Manning and pass catchers don't succeed in the rain, when the run game failed. Single examples aren't proof, just examples.
But ultimately you don't get to play in the tournament if you don't make it to the tournament. And so understanding what statistically gives a team the best chance to succeed in the regular season and earn a playoff bid is critical as well.
The tides are turning in the league, and passing the ball is getting harder. So it makes sense to prioritize running the ball more than it did 5 years ago.
I'm sure we can all find examples where success was tilted one way or the other. The Giants don't make it to the Super Bowl if Eli Manning and pass catchers don't succeed in the rain, when the run game failed. Single examples aren't proof, just examples.
But ultimately you don't get to play in the tournament if you don't make it to the tournament. And so understanding what statistically gives a team the best chance to succeed in the regular season and earn a playoff bid is critical as well.
The tides are turning in the league, and passing the ball is getting harder. So it makes sense to prioritize running the ball more than it did 5 years ago.
And people blast Gettleman! He was ahead of the curve 6 years ago! lol
In any sports, its all about adjustments. Baseball instituted a pitch count, no shift, and the DH in the NL
Basketball three point shooting dominates the game and people are drafted by speciality not ability.
Once teams figure out the best way to throw the ball - the uptick will come back and it probably wont be long before it does.
I don't believe singular examples establish cause. I don't believe a team should aim for a bad offensive line as a strategy.
I just think it's important to be mindful of what really did happen if we're going to use anecdotes as support for our views.
As a thought exercise, I do wonder what Eli Manning would pick. Great line, bad pass catchers, great run game. Or bad line, great pass catchers, bad run game.
I don't believe singular examples establish cause. I don't believe a team should aim for a bad offensive line as a strategy.
I just think it's important to be mindful of what really did happen if we're going to use anecdotes as support for our views.
As a thought exercise, I do wonder what Eli Manning would pick. Great line, bad pass catchers, great run game. Or bad line, great pass catchers, bad run game.
the 2nd super bowl came in elis age 30 season. he didnt play another playoff game until his age 35.
before his age 30 he'd made the playoffs 4/6 seasons (many where he didnt play his best or have explosive weapons).
the fundamental of being good at the line of scrimmage has endured through many phases/eras. the regression those areas is quite clearly why the last decade has gone the way it has for nyg.
Those rosters are not particularly good anywhere else. But even with bad ownership and lots of front office mistakes, they had the upside to win through explosive plays.
I actually think this is a good model for the Giants because I don't think we are ever going to have a front office that provides a long term sustained advantage on the league. I don't think we will build deep rosters like SF/BAL/PHI. So we need an easy button that can make us a 2nd tier contender with upside.
I don't believe singular examples establish cause. I don't believe a team should aim for a bad offensive line as a strategy.
I just think it's important to be mindful of what really did happen if we're going to use anecdotes as support for our views.
As a thought exercise, I do wonder what Eli Manning would pick. Great line, bad pass catchers, great run game. Or bad line, great pass catchers, bad run game.
the 2nd super bowl came in elis age 30 season. he didnt play another playoff game until his age 35.
before his age 30 he'd made the playoffs 4/6 seasons (many where he didnt play his best or have explosive weapons).
the fundamental of being good at the line of scrimmage has endured through many phases/eras. the regression those areas is quite clearly why the last decade has gone the way it has for nyg.
Again, I am not discounting that a strong offensive line is a positive. And I don't believe any team architect ever goes into planning with intention of not having a strong offensive line.
But there are examples where teams have transcended limitations there with good success. The 2011 Giants are an example. The 2023 49ers are another. I don't think either of those teams set out to have bad lines.
Again, I am not discounting that a strong offensive line is a positive. And I don't believe any team architect ever goes into planning with intention of not having a strong offensive line.
But there are examples where teams have transcended limitations there with good success. The 2011 Giants are an example. The 2023 49ers are another. I don't think either of those teams set out to have bad lines.
the 49ers have the best LT of this generation and were the best run blocking team in the entire league according to PFF. in the postseason they graded out as the 6th best of 14 teams in pass pro and only allowed 4 sacks in 3 games.
during the regular season they had some injuries (including to trent) and were adapting to having lost 2 first rounders to big contracts in FA in successive offseasons (mike mcglinchey and laken tomlinson) so there was some regression in pass pro but it is incorrect to say that they didnt have a good offensive line. 2 of their starters didnt allow sacks all season including postseason (trent and banks). it looks like mckivitz was a weak link replacing mcglinchey, but that's the problem when you are contender for an extended period of time - you cant keep everyone.
In the SB, the SF run game took a big dive from in season performances. Huge impact on Purdy and you see it in his completion percentage and Y/A. Lot to expect a 2nd year QB to overcome. Something similar happened to Brady in both Giants SB wins.
there is no overall grade, it is pass and run separately. #1 in run, #24 in pass. blend that however you see fit. clearly the running game was a big part of their scoring as an offense - they were 1st in rushing TDs and 3rd in yards with only the 8th most rushing attempts - so ignoring the 50.4% of plays where the OL was very effectively run blocking seems like a pretty significant part of evaluating their OL to me.
in the postseason when they were healthy and went to the SB, they were 6/14 in pass, 7/14 in run blocking.
by combined AAV they went into the season with the 16th most expensive OL, so they performed in the postseason against the best teams in the NFL somewhere in the spectrum of where they spent.
also exactly where they are ranked right now by pff, entering week 4 their OL is 14th with 4/5 same starters + a new 3rd round pick at guard.
i again find myself lost in whatever point you're trying to prove as it relates to this thread. do you think this 49ers regime, which traded for and then just made trent the highest paid LT ever, drafted mike mcglinchey 9th overall, traded for and paid laken tomlinson, all before they traded for cmc or tried to move up for a QB is an example of a team that wasnt focused on first building at the line of scrimmage?
https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-offensive-line-rankings-week-4-2024 - ( New Window )
I've linked an article from mid-December. At the time they were 10-3 and 5 games into a 6-game win streak.
I've never remotely intimated the 49ers didn't invest or focus on their line. And I'm fully aware of the injury and personnel scenarios that occurred.
My point is that teams can have good offenses in spit of poor line play. I can't imagine how this thought created anything in the neighborhood of confusion for you.
But there are examples where teams have transcended limitations there with good success. The 2011 Giants are an example. The 2023 49ers are another. I don't think either of those teams set out to have bad lines.
That the 49ers line seemingly played better in the playoffs is assuredly one of the reasons they advanced to the Super Bowl. But it doesn't seem like it was a primary reason they had success in the regular season.
PFF ranks the 49ers offensive line 20th in the NFL - ( New Window )
In the SB, the SF run game took a big dive from in season performances. Huge impact on Purdy and you see it in his completion percentage and Y/A. Lot to expect a 2nd year QB to overcome. Something similar happened to Brady in both Giants SB wins.
when opponent quality increases some units are going to win battles some will lose. KC was 1 of the best defenses in football last year (2nd best in ppg allowed) for a reason. the 49ers offense shouldnt have been as productive against the KC defense as they were against the rest of the league bc that defense was better.
also lets remember how that game ended - it was a 19-19 game that went to OT. purdy got the ball first and had a 16 play ~8 minute drive go down to the KC 9 yard line but had to settle for a fg. the 1 sack they allowed in the game didnt come in OT.
mahomes got the ball and when his 7+ min drive got to the SF 10 yard line he completed 2 passes purdy didnt to win a SB but that is about as close of a margin as there can be between winning/losing a SB. the whole OT period was just the 2 great drives, 1 ended in fg the other didnt.
I've linked an article from mid-December. At the time they were 10-3 and 5 games into a 6-game win streak.
I've never remotely intimated the 49ers didn't invest or focus on their line. And I'm fully aware of the injury and personnel scenarios that occurred.
My point is that teams can have good offenses in spit of poor line play.I can't imagine how this thought created anything in the neighborhood of confusion for you.
Quote:
Again, I am not discounting that a strong offensive line is a positive. And I don't believe any team architect ever goes into planning with intention of not having a strong offensive line.
But there are examples where teams have transcended limitations there with good success. The 2011 Giants are an example. The 2023 49ers are another. I don't think either of those teams set out to have bad lines.
That the 49ers line seemingly played better in the playoffs is assuredly one of the reasons they advanced to the Super Bowl. But it doesn't seem like it was a primary reason they had success in the regular season. PFF ranks the 49ers offensive line 20th in the NFL - ( New Window )
what creates confusion for me is you calling the 49ers OL "poor" and "bad", because it wasnt either of those things unless you twist yourself into your usual pretzel.
they were the #1 run blocking offense and #1 rushing td team all season. when their OL got healthy in the postseason it performed well in pass pro too and they came a few yards away from winning rings. none of that is "bad".
all teams go through ebbs/flows over a full season esp when dealing with key injuries like trent williams, holding that up as some kind of proof point while ignoring the rest to say they had a "bad line" is just plainly inaccurate. on the 50.4% of plays they called runs it had a case as the best line in football. is that "bad" or "poor"?
SF season: 4.7 ypc CM Season: 5.4 ypc
SF SB: Team: 3.5 ypc CM: 3.5 ypc
You get in that 3.5 ypc or lower it gets a lot harder on the QB. Tougher pass environment to excel with more unfavorable down/distances and not having a more reliable run game. SF was not a top PB OL so this impacts them as well.
Big games often come down to one team taking away something the other team did really well a little or lot for the season and of course who won the LoS battle.
SF season: 4.7 ypc CM Season: 5.4 ypc
SF SB: Team: 3.5 ypc CM: 3.5 ypc
You get in that 3.5 ypc or lower it gets a lot harder on the QB. Tougher pass environment to excel with more unfavorable down/distances and not having a more reliable run game. SF was not a top PB OL so this impacts them as well.
Big games often come down to one team taking away something the other team did really well a little or lot for the season and of course who won the LoS battle.
in 1 game anything can happen (esp in a SB against another top team). that is why playoff games are fun. the entire point of 2 top teams playing each other is seeing which of good units prevails on the other. someone isn't going to play up to their norm bc both teams cant win. it doesn't mean the loser is "bad" or "poor". the 2007 NE patriots didnt have a bad or poor offense just because they only scored 14 points in the SB.
what creates confusion for me is you calling the 49ers OL "poor" and "bad", because it wasnt either of those things unless you twist yourself into your usual pretzel.
they were the #1 run blocking offense and #1 rushing td team all season. when their OL got healthy in the postseason it performed well in pass pro too and they came a few yards away from winning rings. none of that is "bad".
all teams go through ebbs/flows over a full season esp when dealing with key injuries like trent williams, holding that up as some kind of proof point while ignoring the rest to say they had a "bad line" is just plainly inaccurate. on the 50.4% of plays they called runs it had a case as the best line in football. is that "bad" or "poor"?
My pretzel flavor is brought to you by PFF's observation that the unit ranked week-by-week at or near the bottom third in the league overall.
If the aggregate PFF rank of a team's line is not a good holistic tool to judge the group, that's probably a pretzel that tastes worst to you than me ultimately.
That their pass protection was so bad that it tipped scales in such a way as to net out the best running block team to a bottom third overall unit, is an alarm Auntie Anne could even hear.
I don't have an objection to the notion they played better in the playoffs. If you want to think the unit overall didn't do a poor job during the regular season, you might want to ask PFF for a refund.
You highlighted what Reid did after they lost the SB. Giants should have done that after '11 (and they were already way behind). Took nine years to draft an IOL with a premium pick going from Snee to Pugh. Big mistake signing Beatty and then the reach OL picks. Lot of really good to great OL in the '11 and '12 drafts they passed on.
Poles has a lot of work to do on his OL.
Hope you get a chance to make Eli and TC's induction to the HOF.
"In Reese the LoS eventually destructs" and it sure did.
Very menacing look - ( New Window )
Quote:
That the 49ers line seemingly played better in the playoffs is assuredly one of the reasons they advanced to the Super Bowl. But it doesn't seem like it was a primary reason they had success in the regular season. PFF ranks the 49ers offensive line 20th in the NFL - ( New Window )
what creates confusion for me is you calling the 49ers OL "poor" and "bad", because it wasnt either of those things unless you twist yourself into your usual pretzel.
they were the #1 run blocking offense and #1 rushing td team all season. when their OL got healthy in the postseason it performed well in pass pro too and they came a few yards away from winning rings. none of that is "bad".
all teams go through ebbs/flows over a full season esp when dealing with key injuries like trent williams, holding that up as some kind of proof point while ignoring the rest to say they had a "bad line" is just plainly inaccurate. on the 50.4% of plays they called runs it had a case as the best line in football. is that "bad" or "poor"?
My pretzel flavor is brought to you by PFF's observation that the unit ranked week-by-week at or near the bottom third in the league overall.
If the aggregate PFF rank of a team's line is not a good holistic tool to judge the group, that's probably a pretzel that tastes worst to you than me ultimately.
That their pass protection was so bad that it tipped scales in such a way as to net out the best running block team to a bottom third overall unit, is an alarm Auntie Anne could even hear.
I don't have an objection to the notion they played better in the playoffs. If you want to think the unit overall didn't do a poor job during the regular season, you might want to ask PFF for a refund.
you dont need to keep contorting yourself - my disagreement was simple that they werent a "bad" or "poor" unit. restricting to a specific time frame is your contortions speaking.
only a moron would hold up 1 uneven statistic as if it's a panacea in a lesser sample while not accounting for obvious things like injuries. youre not a moron so you realize that - which is worse than a moron bc it's intellectually dishonest.
they were 1 of the most productive rushing teams in footabll and it so happened they had the highest graded run blocking offensive line (full year, regular season + post).
their pressure rate was right at league average. they only allowed the 6th most sacks with 1.9 per game and 34 total. they allowed even fewer than that per game in the postseason when their best OL was healthy. they only allowed 1 sack to KC in a game where they almost won the god damn super bowl.
if that's "bad" and "poor", what were the teams who allowed twice as many sacks and couldnt run the ball nearly as well? double bad? super poor? the giants allowed almost 3x as many sacks and were graded as the 3rd worst run blocking unit. were they quadruple poor?
i find it to be as relevant as any other listicle or power ranking, which is to mean not that relevant.
they have this year's NYG line at 26th just a few spots off last year's nyg final ranking of 30th. do the 2 units to look similar to you on the field? would you describe this year's nyg OL to be "poor" or "bad"?
I thought he's done a good job at skill positions, and his tenure will be determined on whether Williams pans out. WAY too early to close the book there.
If PFF ranks a unit in the bottom third of the league, I'm perfectly comfortable concluding that unit played poorly overall.
The Giants offensive line got absolutely skull fucked last week, so I'm not surprised if that's 1/3 of the data, they don't rank well.
If PFF ranks a unit in the bottom third of the league, I'm perfectly comfortable concluding that unit played poorly overall.
The Giants offensive line got absolutely skull fucked last week, so I'm not surprised if that's 1/3 of the data, they don't rank well.
look at that you can apply context. their ranking was unchanged from last week so the browns game actually wasnt even a needle mover.
do you think that ranking alone means they have been a "bad" or "poor" offensive line?
And the optimism some of us feel is based on the needle moving in the right direction, not grounded completely in results.
If 2/3 of the data being used is the skull fucking from last week + the week one performance where Jones was hit and sacked at a higher clip, no I'm not surprised the aggregate grades are low and have stayed there.
If I'm going to believe in the data, I have to believe what it says.
And the optimism some of us feel is based on the needle moving in the right direction, not grounded completely in results.
If 2/3 of the data being used is the skull fucking from last week + the week one performance where Jones was hit and sacked at a higher clip, no I'm not surprised the aggregate grades are low and have stayed there.
If I'm going to believe in the data, I have to believe what it says.
the other option is to not be a slave to 1 list of rankings that are at least somewhat opinion based. certainly not if there's an abundance of evidence suggesting otherwise.
the giants right now, even with the cleveland skull fucking, are tied for 15th in sacks allowed per game at 2.7. 50% improvement from 5.0 last year. jones has been good navigating the pocket but as of yet nobody on BBI has accused him of elevating his line a la patrick mahomes so as to distort that sacks per game. id imagine most still believe he net inflates the sacks against (which he did vs min).
the running game has been effective. singletary is averaging 4.7 ypc.
outside of whoever was blocking myles garrett, id call the OL play so far this year a lot of adjectives that aren't "poor" or "bad". functional, improved, average-ish. if this is poor/bad then we have no adjectives for what came before this. and if the much better niners ol of last year that was 1 completed pass from winning a SB was poor/bad then we really have no adjectives.
I suspect the reason PFF rates the Giants poorly is that they grade out poorly. And that the writers there aren't making YoY comparisons. From looking at the pass rush counting stats for example they've performed very poorly in one game, poorly in one game, and well in one. I'm not surprised that balances out to a bottom 3rd unit.
If we're value judging opinions, I'm going with PFF over yours.