Big Blue Huddle

Quote from: kingm56 on Today at 10:59:22 AMwhy did both the OC and HC have immense success in KC and Buff

Because both the Chiefs and the Bills have immensely more talented rosters from top to bottom.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on Today at 10:53:09 AMIn my opinion, QBs (and the rest of their offenses) tend to make OCs - not the other way around. Daboll himself is a good example. He had been an OC in numerous places prior to Buffalo and was never considered anything noteworthy until he got Josh Allen. Every other OC job he had before that led to him being fired. After spending a few years with Josh Allen as the OC, he was suddenly the hottest candidate for a head coaching job in the league. How come that never happened after any of his prior OC stints?

Please don't misconstrue the above as a claim on my part that some OCs are not better than others. I am not saying that at all and don't think that. Clearly some are very good, some are very bad, and many are somewhere in between. All I am saying is the guys on the field matter more than the guy with the headset. And the final numerical arbiter of value (compensation) duly reflects that.

If you really want to appreciate the importance of the OC in the grand scheme of things, just compare the 2022 Eagles offense versus the 2023 Eagles offense.  Under one OC in 2022, they were 3rd in both points and yards.  With essentially the same roster but a new OC, that unit was ranked 7th in points and yards under their new OC.

Still, the debate over the relative importance of coaching versus talent has been going on since football was first invented.  So I doubt we will resolve the issue now.

Do you agree with their ranking or assessment?


31) New York Giants
Daniel Jones, rehabbing from the torn ACL that ended his 2023 campaign, may have to compete with free-agent addition Drew Lock to win the Giants' starting QB job. Whoever wins the gig will get to work with No. 6 overall pick Malik Nabers, New York's most explosive wide receiver since Odell Beckham Jr.

The Giants made a concerted effort to improve their offensive line during the offseason. But adding Nabers was somewhat offset by losing RB Saquon Barkley, and it's challenging to see much upside for Big Blue.

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/nfl-offense-rankings/

Quote from: kingm56 on Today at 10:42:32 AMYou answered a question with a question. Again, can explain why Kafka was a hot OC and led the leagues best passing game in KC, but a reason for DJs failures here?  I'd also like to hear more about how a hot OC in Buff and NFL CoY is part of DJs problem.

I think you are overstating things when you claim that Kafka "led the league's best passing game."   Kafka wasn't the OC; he was the quarterback's coach & passing game coordinator.  To make matters worse, Andy Reid, rather than the OC, calls the plays for the Chiefs.

Quote from: Uncle Mickey on Today at 10:39:50 AMWaller was supposed to be that 'de-facto' WR1 and that experiment failed miserably (along with the OL).

Yeah, everything was looking good right up until Waller suffered that hamstring injury in the week leading up to opening day.  It was all downhill from there. 

Ric Serritella has a weekly newsletter in which he interviews David Gettleman.  Here is an excerpt of that newsletter



At and near the bottom, Gettleman complains about draft-media grades being listened to by GMs (He seemed very upset with the Athletic's Dane Brugler, who is well respected by NFL people).  Seeing how the only recent owner Gettleman worked with was Mara (and Tisch), perhaps John Mara wasn't impressed by the grades the Giants received for drafting Daniel Jones 6th overall.  When I think about it, I saw a lot of speculation of John Mara loving Daniel Jones (the theory being he was similar to Eli Manning) but I can't recall a smoking gun or actual factual evidence to support that speculation.

https://x.com/clt_ny/status/1786740194638446598


If you would like to subscribe to the newsletter, here is the link.


https://x.com/RicSerritella/status/1786756699333837187

Quote from: kingm56 on Today at 10:32:29 AMThis requires further explanation. Are you claiming the HC and OC are part of the problem?  If so, can you explain their successes in KC and Buff?  I also believe the Giants have some talent that's being hindered by the QB. Is it a coincidence that Robinson started to emerge with the backup QB?  Can we also agree that DJ enjoyed playing with a top 3 LT and RB? 

If you believe Kafka didn't have issues, how do you explain Daboll seeking to take away (and he did take away multiple times last season) play-calling duties?

Quote from: Uncle Mickey on Today at 10:19:09 AMI mean when I look at the last 5-7 OL coaches we have had that might be the greatest joke of all time!

Most of them are not even coaching OL anymore in the NFL and many of them had very, very weak resumes to boot. That was a horrific job by this organization finding a good one. Now this Bracillo guy his resume and rep when you listen to a bunch of guys who either know him closely or have played under him are absolutely glowing. Been waiting a long time for them to get this position on the staff adequate addressed.

I would argue the O-line coach is as important as your OC and DC.  First off, they are the only position to coach 5 players on the field (6 in heavy tight-end packages), with the possible exception of a DB coach in a system that plays mostly nickel.  Second, I don't think there is a position in the league where prospects come in less prepared for NFL games than O-linemen.  Finally, with the CBA limits, coaching O-linemen has never been more challenging owing to the lack of time in pads.

Quote from: AZGiantFan on Today at 01:59:40 AMPeople forget that there was a reason his (stupid) nickname was Danny Dimes after his rookie year.

The Giants pushing the "Danny Dimes" nickname was a classic PR blunder.   If Gettleman and NYG were savvy, they would have let it leak to one or two draftniks or insiders that they had an interest in Daniel Jones in the draft.  Part of the overall negative reaction to Jones being drafted at 6 is it made the draftniks who failed to predict that look bad (since where players are drafted is really the only measure for people in the draftnik community).   Had there been leaks and some draftniks looked good by calling the pick, the reception would have been at least less negative.

Calling a rookie QB "Danny Dimes" before he even took a regular-season snap just put a bull's eye on Jones.

Quote from: Stringer Bell on Today at 10:07:54 AMThe assumption that there was a willing trade partner looking to trade draft assets for an oft-injured RB on an expiring contract is not a good one.

Did you see what Barkley was paid? 

Quote from: kingm56 on Today at 09:29:57 AMExpectations by whom?

I said the consensus expected the Eagles to return to the Super Bowl.  What is the purpose of your question?  Are you disputing the consensus expected a Super Bowl repeat?  Do you want me to list a bunch of people who made that prediction so you can go to Google and most people who didn't predict the Eagles would return (even though consensus means the majority is not unanimous)? 

Can't you acknowledge that the Eagles fell far short of expectations?

Quote from: kingm56 on Today at 09:27:27 AMThe better question: How can you have a quality conversation when the opposing viewpoint reframes aggregate responses to benefit thier position?  Pray Tell, show me where the "Jones Critics" dismissed his 'brilliance.' Indeed, DJ's had some wonderful games/movements.  However, that's not the majority point.  The point was, and still is, a lot of professional QBs have moments of brilliance, especially QBs with 60 starts.  However, you chose to completely ignore that point, presumably because you don't have a good response; thus, you simply reframed the oppositions' position to give yourself the moral and intellectual high-ground.         

Even now, instead of hearing what I said and making an effort to understand my point, you only listen to the extent needed to formulate some sort of rebuttal

 

I used to disagree with Ed in terms of debate.  Ed opposed debate, while I thought it could be fun.   I think the problem is what we saw as debate.  I guess I saw the debate as discussing differing points of view, while I suspect Ed was seeing it as never listening to what the other side said and instead focusing all of one's efforts to try and prove that person wrong.

I spent considerable thought and effort trying to improve the quality of discourse, only to have those comments fall on deaf ears, and the issues I raised were just added to. I don't know what else I can do.

 

You win, whatever it is you think you are winning.  I can't keep going around in circles like this.

Quote from: AYM on Today at 09:23:41 AMThey replaced Dan Quinn with Mike Zimmer who is probably just as good a DC.

Maybe, but he's 67 and spent the last couple of seasons kicking around the college ranks as an analyst/consultant.   At his prime, I would say you are correct, but it almost seemed like he was in semi-retirement and now is coming back.  Such returns are not always certain.

Quote from: kingm56 on Today at 09:07:19 AMYet, they still won 11 games and made the playoffs.   This place went crazy when we won 9 games; so, I don't see 11 wins as a failure, despite how they finished.

If OC/DC were the primary issue, they would have struggled out the gate as players were learning the new systems; however, the reverse happened.  Even good teams go through spells; it happens all the time.  Regardless, I suspect they'll win double-digit games again this season, but will wait until Aug to make any real predictions. 

Matt,

I am confused.  The expectation for the Eagles (and this seemed to be a strong consensus) was that they would be returning to the Super Bowl.  How does putting up 11 wins (and making the playoffs) while suffering an embarrassing end-of-season loss to the Giants and immediately getting booted from the playoffs in a butt-kicking by the Bucs suggest the Eagles met expectations?

Quote from: Trench on Today at 09:10:22 AMEvery QB has had flashes of brilliance. That is not a good argument

This comment sort of reflects the issue with discussing Jones.  Uncle Mickey had "showed flashes of brilliance" as a part of an argument.  The Jones critics focused on that part of the argument and first claimed Jones never showed brilliance.  Then, when you show historic accomplishments that any reasonable person would say was a flash of brilliance, the goalposts were moved, and it was claimed failed QBs had shown flashes of brilliance (not sure what that even means in context to UM's original point).  Finally, we have an entire point Uncle Mickey made thrown out, and it's declared the point that Jones has shown flashes of brilliance is now the entire argument, and clearly, that argument is a "bad one."

How can there be quality conversation in conditions like that?