Mike Lombardi on team building

[MightyGiants]

In his latest podcast, Mike addressed team building.   A few points he made:

If he was a GM now, he would focus on first finding a QB.   After that, he would pour resources into building the O-line and the D-line.   The rest of the team he would build out with what is left


He also shared a pearl of wisdom from Bill Walsh.   It's that you don't add an elite WR to your team until it's nearly done, in terms of building out.

[Bob In PA]

In his latest podcast, Mike addressed team building.   A few points he made:

If he was a GM now, he would focus on first finding a QB.   After that, he would pour resources into building the O-line and the D-line.   The rest of the team he would build out with what is left

Rich: As is mostly the case, I disagree with Lombardi.  Which would you rather have?

(1) A lousy OL with a great QB who must run for his life most of the time and cannot count on a decent run-game to at least make the opponent honor his run-fakes, in which case you need an offensive line (THREE TO FIVE MORE DECENT PLAYERS) before you get your QB killed.  -or-

(2) A solid OL that opens holes for the run-game but which can't stop the defense from putting eight men on the LOS because the QB is useless to the passing attack, so nobody fears that he might do damage (in which case you need ONE GOOD OR GREAT PLAYER).

Bob

[Bob In PA]

He also shared a pearl of wisdom from Bill Walsh.  It's that you don't add an elite WR to your team until it's nearly done, in terms of building out.

Rich: There are situations in which that makes sense, but it depends on lots of factors. I suppose it can be considered "a preferred method of operation" but it is certainly NOT a general rule.

It depends what you mean by "elite WR." There are three kinds of elite WR's - speed guys, size guys and those who have both speed and size.  If talking about speed guys alone, it makes sense because he might lose some or all of his speed while you're building a team, so you want to pick him as late as possible. Size guys do not have that limitation, so you can pick them in the middle of your building process. The final type (like A.J. Brown of the Eagles) are good on a building team (Titans) or a championship-ready team (Eagles).  In fact, the ONLY reason to have traded Brown (other than money) was the fact that the Titans' building process had presumably hit a road block (for whatever reason) so it didn't make sense to keep him.

Bob

PS added later.  When I used the word "speed" I did not mean quickness or cleverness.  There ARE receivers who lack both speed and size but somehow manage to succeed SOLELY through quickness and/or cleverness.  I intentionally ignored those guys for purposes of writing the response above.

[DaveBrown74]

In his latest podcast, Mike addressed team building.   A few points he made:

If he was a GM now, he would focus on first finding a QB.   After that, he would pour resources into building the O-line and the D-line.   The rest of the team he would build out with what is left


He also shared a pearl of wisdom from Bill Walsh.   It's that you don't add an elite WR to your team until it's nearly done, in terms of building out.

I have not listened to the podcast yet, but I intend to.

Interesting nuggets. My only small push-back is the league was very different when Walsh was around, including the precise rules. I wonder if he'd have the lower priority on elite receivers in today's NFL as well. I question that, myself. I'll listen to the pod though.

[MightyGiants]

I have not listened to the podcast yet, but I intend to.

Interesting nuggets. My only small push-back is the league was very different when Walsh was around, including the precise rules. I wonder if he'd have the lower priority on elite receivers in today's NFL as well. I question that, myself. I'll listen to the pod though.

I guess you can look to the Raiders as an example of a team adding a WR when they weren't ready.

I think most of the other situations:

the Eagles were ready when they added AJ Brown

the Dolphins were pretty set when they added Hill

the Bengals were perhaps the closest thing to an anomaly.   They had their QB, they had their D-line, and they had a reasonably good team when they added Chase. The only thing the Bengals lacked was a good O-line

[DaveBrown74]

I guess you can look to the Raiders as an example of a team adding a WR when they weren't ready.

I think most of the other situations:

the Eagles were ready when they added AJ Brown

the Dolphins were pretty set when they added Hill

the Bengals were perhaps the closest thing to an anomaly.   They had their QB, they had their D-line, and they had a reasonably good team when they added Chase. The only thing the Bengals lacked was a good O-line

I definitely don't think a terrible team like the Raiders should go out and add a top shelf WR, but his point seems to be that it should be the last key piece a team should add (or almost the last). That's the part I'm not sure about in today's NFL. If we're talking about adding a high priced free agent, maybe, but I'm not sure I'd agree if we're talking about the draft.

[katkavage]

If you are building a team,the QB is the most critical position. But if you can't find that QB in year one, yes go to offensive line and defensive line. Understand the a rebuild is not an overnight process. Receivers and running backs are the last pieces to worry about. Giants have been doing it wrong for the last decade. Gettleman, after realizing Eli was done after year one reached for Jones.  I hope Schoen, in year three gets that QB.

[nb587]

Rich: As is mostly the case, I disagree with Lombardi.  Which would you rather have?

(1) A lousy OL with a great QB who must run for his life most of the time and cannot count on a decent run-game to at least make the opponent honor his run-fakes, in which case you need an offensive line (THREE TO FIVE MORE DECENT PLAYERS) before you get your QB killed.  -or-

(2) A solid OL that opens holes for the run-game but which can't stop the defense from putting eight men on the LOS because the QB is useless to the passing attack, so nobody fears that he might do damage (in which case you need ONE GOOD OR GREAT PLAYER).

Bob

I think Joe Burrow and the Bengals answer your question. The problem for me is that QBs as great as Burrow are so rare they almost break the rules.  If the Giants go QB in the next draft and find another Burrow, draft him and we'll work on the line later. We'll figure out what to do with Jones

[DaveBrown74]

The Giants have more at O line right now than the Bengals did when they got Burrow. Same with the Chargers and Herbert. One can make the point that the Chargers haven't won anything yet with Herbert, but that's a defensive issue not an offensive one. The Jags also didn't have much of anything when they drafted Lawrence, and the Dolphins didn't have much when they drafted Tua.

I would further add that if you do set up your whole team and load up your O line, defense, and skill players, you will probably be a 9-8 type team and then have a much lower chance of getting an elite QB than someone picking in the top 5.

[MightyGiants]

I think Joe Burrow and the Bengals answer your question. The problem for me is that QBs as great as Burrow are so rare they almost break the rules.  If the Giants go QB in the next draft and find another Burrow, draft him and we'll work on the line later. We'll figure out what to do with Jones

I wonder if Joe Burrow will make it to thirty with the beatings he takes and the injuries he sustains

[katkavage]

Giants have addressed the OL in multiple drafts. The can't keep using first or second round picks on them. But they can, with smart scouting, fill holes in the later rounds and free agency. Time to get it right.

[Bob In PA]

I think Joe Burrow and the Bengals answer your question. The problem for me is that QBs as great as Burrow are so rare they almost break the rules.  If the Giants go QB in the next draft and find another Burrow, draft him and we'll work on the line later. We'll figure out what to do with Jones

nb: That's the best possible argument, but QB's who can change the fortunes of 21 other starters are TOO rare. 

I'd always go in the opposite direction because it give you more room for error when finally drafting a QB.

I've been around long enough to know the vast majority of HIGH 1ST ROUND QB's turn out to be good at best... but you can name those who rose to the level of a Peyton or Elway on one hand.  A merely "good" QB is only "good" if he has at least above-average players at most of the other 10 positions and a few Pro Bowlers at the rest.

Bob

[Bob In PA]

Giants have addressed the OL in multiple drafts. The can't keep using first or second round picks on them. But they can, with smart scouting, fill holes in the later rounds and free agency. Time to get it right.

kat: That has been a problem for a while. If you're going to pick a player at a non-premium position high in the first round, you had better be right. The Giants in this century IMO have been a lot more wrong than right. Bob

[katkavage]

Bob, it's all a crap shoot. We can only hope the QB they pick turns out to be the real deal. If they don't feel there is the real deal out there don't pick one just because. Heavy burden on the scouts and Schoen. They don't get it right they are gone.

[Bob In PA]

Bob, it's all a crap shoot. We can only hope the QB they pick turns out to be the real deal. If they don't feel there is the real deal out there don't pick one just because. Heavy burden on the scouts and Schoen. They don't get it right they are gone.

kat: I haven't been following everyone else's thoughts on that issue.  Are you expecting a QB next year in the high first round -or- are you almost demanding it?  Bob