Commanders Giants
QB Daniels. TBD
RB Brian Robinson. Tyrone Tracey
WR Mclauren. Nabers
WR Dyami Brown. Wandale Robinson
WR 0. Zacchaues. Slayton
TE Ertz. Theo Johnson
LT B Coleman. Thomas
LG Nick Allegretti. Runyan
C Tyler Biadez. JMS
RG Sam Cosmi. Van Roten
RT Andrew Wylie. Eluemunor
DE Clelin Ferrell. Nunez Roches
DT Daron Payne. Lawrence
DT Johnathan Allen. E Chatman
DE Dorance Armstrong. B Burns
LB Frankie Luvu. Thibodeaux
MLB Bobby Wagner. Okereke
LB Dante Fowler. McFadden
CB Ben St Juste. Jackson
CB Lattimore. Banks
SLOT Mike Sainristil. Phillips
S Jeremy Chinn. Pinnock
S Quan Martin. Nubin
Qb is obviously as we have no one
RB Tracey as a rookie put up better numbers despite starting later in the season
WR Nabers had better stats than Mclauren and our other wrs are better than their guys
TE Ertz is a solid pro but nothing exceptional with an actual qb I think Theo could produce Ertz 600 yards
OL- our Oline is player for player better, outside Biadez for JMS
Dline Our pass rushers are significantly better while they have 2 great DTs, we have 1 and 2 Edge rushers.
Mike/LB at this point Okereke is a better Mike than Wagner who is up there in age
CB is really the difference as they have a lockdown CB1 but I'd argue we have a better CB2 and SLOT
Safety- I'd say safety is a draw
So from my perspective they have us on CB1 and QB... So if we get a CB1, a QB and some other pieces in FA and the draft like DT, another wr, another safety, 2 olinemen then why can't we compete?
@Jclayton92 You might find these PFF lineups helpful
(https://i.imgur.com/Yle40TR.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/1dP64EL.png)
Yes, I agree!
Travis Hunter in the 1st bolsters our offensive playmakers while giving us a shutdown corner.
FA bridge QB who can actually throw downfield while picking up a developmental QB in the2nd or 3rd round.
We always have the option of loading up for picks and going all out for a franchise QB in 2026.
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 05, 2025, 01:59:20 PM@Jclayton92
You might find these PFF lineups helpful
(https://i.imgur.com/Yle40TR.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/1dP64EL.png)
Goodness me, that O Line is almost as bad as ours.
Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on February 05, 2025, 02:07:02 PMGoodness me, that O Line is almost as bad as ours.
and that was before the Giants lost AT for the season
I agree 100%
The only thing worth mentioning, is Slayton and GVR are likely gone.
But yea, the PFF grades on the OL, not much difference between the two. Though I;d like to see Eleumenors grade as he is technically the starter.
Quote from: MrGap92 on February 05, 2025, 02:54:50 PMI agree 100%
The only thing worth mentioning, is Slayton and GVR are likely gone.
But yea, the PFF grades on the OL, not much difference between the two. Though I;d like to see Eleumenors grade as he is technically the starter.
Indeed, this situation highlights a point many of us have discussed at length over the past few years: a quarterback can showcase his skills regardless of offensive line play, and an elite quarterback can elevate an otherwise average line. This season, we've seen several observers praise Bobby Johnson, despite the fact he continues to field below-average offensive lines. Yet he's now viewed in a more favorable light, largely due to the influence of the starting quarterback.
This dynamic underscores why finding the right quarterback is paramount. The Giants have promising young talent across the offense (except the line), but that won't translate into consistent success until they secure a top-tier signal caller—something they haven't had in over five years. Get the QB right, and we're back to playing competitive football...
I think we're falling into the trap of using stats only to measure players. The second trap is believing this team is just a QB away from being in the playoffs like Washington.
I watched many Washington games this year. I don't care what PFF says - the Commanders' offensive line was better than the Giants. Then there's the coaching ...
The ball bounced right for Washington this year. The Giants were a kicker away and a Naber's drop from beating them in week 2. Then the miraculous Hail Mary for another W. There were also several other turnovers that went their way leading to wins. It's a thin line in this league between winning and losing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: todge on February 05, 2025, 05:43:13 PMI think we're falling into the trap of using stats only to measure players. The second trap is believing this team is just a QB away from being in the playoffs like Washington.
I watched many Washington games this year. I don't care what PFF says - the Commanders' offensive line was better than the Giants. Then there's the coaching ...
The ball bounced right for Washington this year. The Giants were a kicker away and a Naber's drop from beating them in week 2. Then the miraculous Hail Mary for another W. There were also several other turnovers that went their way leading to wins. It's a thin line in this league between winning and losing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's fascinating that you didn't use this same reasoning when discussing the 2022 NY Giants. Instead, you attributed that team's success—far less than Wash 2024 campaign—to DJ's "command of the offense" and superior play. Why the inconsistency? Also, the notion that two coaches, each fired from their previous teams for poor performances, were the catalyst for the change is even more perplexing.
The rationale for Washington—and a myriad of teams before them—experiencing a rapid ascension is easy to decipher for those of us not burden by outdated axioms. While other factors played a role, the single biggest reason for their success is Daniels. Although unlikely, the same paradigm could happen to our Giants...
Quote from: kingm56 on February 05, 2025, 06:26:23 PMIt's fascinating that you didn't use this same reasoning when discussing the 2022 NY Giants. Instead, you attributed that team's success—far less than Wash 2024 campaign—to DJ's "command of the offense" and superior play. Why the inconsistency? Also, the notion that two coaches, each fired from their previous teams for poor performances, were the catalyst for the change is even more perplexing.
The rationale for Washington—and a myriad of teams before them—experiencing a rapid ascension is easy to decipher for those of us not burden by outdated axioms. While other factors played a role, the single biggest reason for their success is Daniels. Although unlikely, the same paradigm could happen to our Giants...
I can't imagine a new owner, a new GM, a new coaching staff led by a HC that took a team to the Super Bowl, 3 2nd round picks 2 3rd round picks (besides the 2nd over pick used to draft Daniels) and over $62 million in salary cap space had nothing to do with the Commanders turn around. /sarcasm/
Then again, you say the rest of us are burdened by critical thinking skills, that have us believing that football is a team sport and more than just a quarterback
Quote from: kingm56 on February 05, 2025, 06:26:23 PMIt's fascinating that you didn't use this same reasoning when discussing the 2022 NY Giants. Instead, you attributed that team's success—far less than Wash 2024 campaign—to DJ's "command of the offense" and superior play. Why the inconsistency? Also, the notion that two coaches, each fired from their previous teams for poor performances, were the catalyst for the change is even more perplexing.
The rationale for Washington—and a myriad of teams before them—experiencing a rapid ascension is easy to decipher for those of us not burden by outdated axioms. While other factors played a role, the single biggest reason for their success is Daniels. Although unlikely, the same paradigm could happen to our Giants...
Funny thing is I didn't even look at stats outside just knowing the Stats of a few key skill guys off the top of my head. Just doing the eye test with the commanders, Texans, Bengals, Rams, you can see the qb play is the main factor in the success of a team jumping in the W/L column.
Another huge misconception is that all these other NFL teams are loaded when they aren't. The Lions, Eagles, Chiefs, and Bills have loaded teams because people go there knowing they have a chance to win a super bowl. Most teams have around the talent that we have +/- with the Qb being a huge piece of that puzzle.
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 05, 2025, 06:46:15 PMI can't imagine a new owner, a new GM, a new coaching staff led by a HC that took a team to the Super Bowl, 3 2nd round picks 2 3rd round picks (besides the 2nd over pick used to draft Daniels) and over $62 million in salary cap space had nothing to do with the Commanders turn around. /sarcasm/
Then again, you say the rest of us are burdened by critical thinking skills, that have us believing that football is a team sport and more than just a quarterback
We've had a ton of draft picks and capital as well, we also have a better offensive coach to theirs. The big difference is the qb Rich, it's why they were picking ahead of us last year. Outside their slot corner none of the draft picks made any impact of note.
Quote from: Jclayton92 on February 05, 2025, 06:56:10 PMWe've had a ton of draft picks and capital as well, we also have a better offensive coach to theirs. The big difference is the qb Rich, it's why they were picking ahead of us last year.
Jess,
QB matters it matters a lot. It is just not correct to dismiss the rest of the equation. Matt's claim falls apart when we look at the massive upgrade the Pats made me at QB and the fact that they are drafting right after the Giants. You can also look at the Chargers and the need to upgrade at coaching before they became a contender despite Herbert.
Quote from: Jclayton92 on February 05, 2025, 06:54:48 PMFunny thing is I didn't even look at stats outside just knowing the Stats of a few key skill guys off the top of my head. Just doing the eye test with the commanders, Texans, Bengals, Rams, you can see the qb play is the main factor in the success of a team jumping in the W/L column.
Another huge misconception is that all these other NFL teams are loaded when they aren't. The Lions, Eagles, Chiefs, and Bills have loaded teams because people go there knowing they have a chance to win a super bowl. Most teams have around the talent that we have +/- with the Qb being a huge piece of that puzzle.
You're right, Jess—nobody mentioned stats. It's fascinating to see how fans switch up the metrics they value to support their preferred narratives. Here, a quarterback and team found success despite a poor offensive line—something we were told was unlikely. Now, to explain Washington's performance, previously emphasized metrics like PFF are being discarded in favor of anecdotal evidence. It's certainly entertaining.
Also, I love how the Chargers example keeps surfacing as proof that coaching can turn a team around. If that were really the case, why did the 2022 Chargers—led by a coach widely regarded as poor—end up with nearly identical results to the 2024 Chargers? From an objective standpoint, the Chargers example falls apart under scrutiny.
Quote from: kingm56 on February 05, 2025, 07:10:40 PMYou're right, Jess—nobody mentioned stats. It's fascinating to see how fans switch up the metrics they value to support their preferred narratives. Here, a quarterback and team found success despite a poor offensive line—something we were told was unlikely. Now, to explain Washington's performance, previously emphasized metrics like PFF are being discarded in favor of anecdotal evidence. It's certainly entertaining.
Also, I love how the Chargers example keeps emerging as an example of how coaching can turn a team around. If true, why did the 2022 Chargers, with a widely renowned terrible coach, produce nearly identical results to the 2024 Chargers? The Chargers example implodes on itself when viewed from an objective perspective.
Matt,
Why pretend that it's only offensive line when it's been made clear there are THREE distinct aspects of QB support? Why ignore receivers and coaching/scheme?
Seems pretty clear out Oline is on par with or maybe better than Washington.
The difference is having a good QB.
Quote from: Trench on February 05, 2025, 10:24:13 PMSeems pretty clear out Oline is on par with or maybe better than Washington.
The difference is having a good QB.
Absolutely, especially when the offensive scheme/system constantly has wide open WRs that the QB can't see.
Quote from: MrGap92 on February 05, 2025, 02:54:50 PMI agree 100%
The only thing worth mentioning, is Slayton and GVR are likely gone.
But yea, the PFF grades on the OL, not much difference between the two. Though I;d like to see Eleumenors grade as he is technically the starter.
Over All 63.2 (65th of 141)
pass block 71 (47th of 141)
Run Block 56.9 (95th of 141)
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 05, 2025, 07:16:07 PMMatt,
Why pretend that it's only offensive line when it's been made clear there are THREE distinct aspects of QB support? Why ignore receivers and coaching/scheme?
I will give you the Receivers
Daniels had the better Receiver unit and Jones has the better singular overall receiver and that is enough.
Scheme though- giants had receivers running open a ton, in almost all games, big moments and that goes beyond this season.
There was more than enough opportunity for Jones and receivers to succeed.
Collectively they did not.
The Giants got rid of the player that can and should be the most impactful as he simple didn't take care of details he had total control over.
Ted,
Show me the person who said the Giants are a QB away? I may have missed it, but I have yet to see or hear of anyone who thinks the Giants are a QB away from putting it together.
Strawman???
Quote from: babywhales on February 06, 2025, 10:00:51 AMI will give you the Receivers
Daniels had the better Receiver unit and Jones has the better singular overall receiver and that is enough.
Scheme though- giants had receivers running open a ton, in almost all games, big moments and that goes beyond this season.
There was more than enough opportunity for Jones and receivers to succeed.
Collectively they did not.
The Giants got rid of the player that can and should be the most impactful as he simple didn't take care of details he had total control over.
Ted,
Show me the person who said the Giants are a QB away? I may have missed it, but I have yet to see or hear of anyone who thinks the Giants are a QB away from putting it together.
Strawman???
Chris,
I am not going to presume to tell anyone how to be a fan. I will say that I have moved on from Daniel Jones. He isn't on the team, he isn't part of the plans for the team and he no longer impacts the team.
To me, it's about where the team is at and how the team can reach a point of being a contender.
As for the scheme, those open receivers came at a price, as Giants QBs were in the top quarter in terms of pressures per dropback (about 38% of the dropbacks per PFF. In other words, Daboll sacrificed protection (by not keeping guys in to protect) to create those open receivers. Unfortunately, QBs running for their lives are not always in the best position to reach their open receivers.
Quote from: todge on February 05, 2025, 05:43:13 PMI think we're falling into the trap of using stats only to measure players. The second trap is believing this team is just a QB away from being in the playoffs like Washington.
I watched many Washington games this year. I don't care what PFF says - the Commanders' offensive line was better than the Giants. Then there's the coaching ...
The ball bounced right for Washington this year. The Giants were a kicker away and a Naber's drop from beating them in week 2. Then the miraculous Hail Mary for another W. There were also several other turnovers that went their way leading to wins. It's a thin line in this league between winning and losing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Agreed, good sir.
Having a talent advantage will only be an advantage if the game plan leverages those competitive advantages you have or, on the other hand, your opponent doesn't play up to their A-game.
Your examples above illustrate these points succinctly, in my opinion.
Peace!
Quote from: kingm56 on February 05, 2025, 07:10:40 PMYou're right, Jess—nobody mentioned stats. It's fascinating to see how fans switch up the metrics they value to support their preferred narratives. Here, a quarterback and team found success despite a poor offensive line—something we were told was unlikely. Now, to explain Washington's performance, previously emphasized metrics like PFF are being discarded in favor of anecdotal evidence. It's certainly entertaining.
Also, I love how the Chargers example keeps surfacing as proof that coaching can turn a team around. If that were really the case, why did the 2022 Chargers—led by a coach widely regarded as poor—end up with nearly identical results to the 2024 Chargers? From an objective standpoint, the Chargers example falls apart under scrutiny.
Matt:
It took Staley 2 years to get to 10-7 (2022) while Harbaugh took only 1 year to get to 11-6.
In 2023, Herbert missed 4 games yet when he did play that season, he was only 5-8.
Harbaugh did not have and had to replace RB1 (Austin Ekeler), WR1 (Keenan Allen) and WR 2 (Mike Williams). He drafted great in picking Ladd McConkey who became WR1 but they never could find a successful WR2. He signed JK Dobbins who replaced Ekeler's rushing yards but was a much less effective pass catcher.
In 1 season, Harbaugh got the Chargers D to go from 24th in points and 28th in yards to 1st in points and 11th in yards.
I simply don't understand how anyone would look a 1st year coach who accomplished that and not think it was a pretty damn good coaching effort.
Quote from: Philosophers on February 06, 2025, 11:49:58 AMMatt:
It took Staley 2 years to get to 10-7 (2022) while Harbaugh took only 1 year to get to 11-6.
In 2023, Herbert missed 4 games yet when he did play that season, he was only 5-8.
Harbaugh did not have and had to replace RB1 (Austin Ekeler), WR1 (Keenan Allen) and WR 2 (Mike Williams). He drafted great in picking Ladd McConkey who became WR1 but they never could find a successful WR2. He signed JK Dobbins who replaced Ekeler's rushing yards but was a much less effective pass catcher.
In 1 season, Harbaugh got the Chargers D to go from 24th in points and 28th in yards to 1st in points and 11th in yards.
I simply don't understand how anyone would look a 1st year coach who accomplished that and not think it was a pretty damn good coaching effort.
In all fairness I doubt its that hard to put up a decent defense with Bosa, Mack, Poona Ford, Kristian Fulton, Asante Samuel, and Derwin James etc.
Quote from: Jclayton92 on February 06, 2025, 12:45:59 PMIn all fairness I doubt its that hard to put up a decent defense with Bosa, Mack, Poona Ford, Kristian Fulton, Asante Samuel, and Derwin James etc.
You say that but Staley could not do it. Harbaugh did it in one year. How many coaches turn around units in 1 year?
Quote from: Philosophers on February 06, 2025, 11:49:58 AMMatt:
It took Staley 2 years to get to 10-7 (2022) while Harbaugh took only 1 year to get to 11-6.
In 2023, Herbert missed 4 games yet when he did play that season, he was only 5-8.
Harbaugh did not have and had to replace RB1 (Austin Ekeler), WR1 (Keenan Allen) and WR 2 (Mike Williams). He drafted great in picking Ladd McConkey who became WR1 but they never could find a successful WR2. He signed JK Dobbins who replaced Ekeler's rushing yards but was a much less effective pass catcher.
In 1 season, Harbaugh got the Chargers D to go from 24th in points and 28th in yards to 1st in points and 11th in yards.
I simply don't understand how anyone would look a 1st year coach who accomplished that and not think it was a pretty damn good coaching effort.
Joe,
I always enjoy engaging with you, brother. Please don't take my response as a complete dismissal of your well-articulated points. However...
It didn't take Staley two years; in 2021, the Chargers went 9–8 and just missed the playoffs, showing a clear, linear progression driven by Herbert's growth. Moreover, your point about replacing key players supports my central thesis: a team can swap personnel—players or coaches—and remain successful as long as it has a top-tier quarterback. You see this with Kansas City, Buffalo, and other franchises led by elite QBs.
The Chargers' dip in 2023 was directly tied to Herbert's multiple injuries, which he tried to play through. When healthy, the team stayed consistently competitive, largely independent of who was head coach—a point that's hard to refute. If anything, this demonstrates the opposite of the narrative pushed: even a "terrible" coach can achieve results comparable to a renowned one when backed by a bona fide quarterback, raising the question of just how crucial coaching is in today's NFL. That's why I can't help but chuckle when people cite the Chargers as an example of coaching being paramount.
Nevertheless, your point about a coach's ability to identify and replace talent is critical, and something I completely agree with. In fact, along with establishing the right environment, it may be the most important aspect of coaching—far more than player development or scheming. Regarding development, players today are exposed to professional-level coaching early on through social media, player/coaching camps (think the Manning School), travel teams, and other apertures. The college game has evolved to closely mirror the pros, including coaching staffs with professional experience. By the time they reach the NFL, there isn't much they haven't already learned—this isn't the '80s or '90s, when the paradigm was very different.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that Staley is a better coach than Harbaugh, nor am I dismissing the positive impact Harbaugh can have. However, it remains puzzling that some fans give Harbaugh so much credit for achieving essentially the same results his predecessor did just two years earlier.
The fundamental question remains - If coaching is so important, how did Staley achieve the same results as Harbaugh?
Quote from: Philosophers on February 06, 2025, 12:51:12 PMYou say that but Staley could not do it. Harbaugh did it in one year. How many coaches turn around units in 1 year?
A ton, Flores turned around a historically bad Vikings Defense in one year with virtually the same talent.
Quote from: Jclayton92 on February 06, 2025, 01:11:01 PMA ton, Flores turned around a historically bad Vikings Defense in one year with virtually the same talent.
To 1st from 24th?
Quote from: Philosophers on February 06, 2025, 12:51:12 PMYou say that but Staley could not do it. Harbaugh did it in one year. How many coaches turn around units in 1 year?
In 2012, Andy Reid led the Eagles to a 4–12 record and was let go by Philadelphia. The following year, under Chip Kelly, they went 10–6 and won the NFC East. Does that mean Kelly was a better coach than Reid? Should he be credited with turning the franchise around?
It's interesting how fans evaluate coaching. Last year, many people claimed Nick Sirianni was the reason the Eagles were struggling and that they wouldn't succeed with him. Now they're in the Super Bowl, and those same critics are nowhere to be found. In 2022, Brian Daboll was hailed as the driving force behind Daniel Jones's turnaround—an example of how critical coaching can be. Today, however, those same fans blame Daboll for Jones's failures and insist the Giants won't be successful with him at the helm. IMO, the data is clear...coaching success is directly tied to the QB's abilities; yet, the latter's success is not directed tied to the former.
Quote from: kingm56 on February 06, 2025, 01:21:11 PMIn 2012, Andy Reid led the Eagles to a 4–12 record and was let go by Philadelphia. The following year, under Chip Kelly, they went 10–6 and won the NFC East. Does that mean Kelly was a better coach than Reid? Should he be credited with turning the franchise around?
It's interesting how fans evaluate coaching. Last year, many people claimed Nick Sirianni was the reason the Eagles were struggling and that they wouldn't succeed with him. Now they're in the Super Bowl, and those same critics are nowhere to be found. In 2022, Brian Daboll was hailed as the driving force behind Daniel Jones's turnaround—an example of how critical coaching can be. Today, however, those same fans blame Daboll for Jones's failures and insist the Giants won't be successful with him at the helm. IMO, the data is clear...coaching success is directly tied to the QB's abilities; yet, the latter's success is not directed tied to the former.
Gotta go with what's convenient for the narrative(s) for some. Simple as that.
Quote from: kingm56 on February 06, 2025, 01:09:48 PM- If coaching is so important, how did Staley achieve the same results as Harbaugh?[/b]
Same results?
Harbaugh in his only season: 11-6
Staley's best season out of three: 10 - 7 (preceded by 9-8) (proceeded by 5-9)
Harbaugh's Charger career 11- 6 .647
Staley's Charger career 24-24 .500
Staley inherited a 7-9 team and went 9-8 his first season with no playoff birth
Harbaugh inherited 5-12 team and went 11- 6 and earned a playoff birth
It's puzzling how you could claim the two coaches achieved similar results
Quote from: MrGap92 on February 06, 2025, 01:22:54 PMGotta go with what's convenient for the narrative(s) for some. Simple as that.
Are you referring to the narrative that coaching doesn't matter, which requires people to ignore actual facts?
Quote from: kingm56 on February 06, 2025, 01:09:48 PMJoe,
I always enjoy engaging with you, brother. Please don't take my response as a complete dismissal of your well-articulated points. However...
It didn't take Staley two years; in 2021, the Chargers went 9–8 and just missed the playoffs, showing a clear, linear progression driven by Herbert's growth. Moreover, your point about replacing key players supports my central thesis: a team can swap personnel—players or coaches—and remain successful as long as it has a top-tier quarterback. You see this with Kansas City, Buffalo, and other franchises led by elite QBs.
The Chargers' dip in 2023 was directly tied to Herbert's multiple injuries, which he tried to play through. When healthy, the team stayed consistently competitive, largely independent of who was head coach—a point that's hard to refute. If anything, this demonstrates the opposite of the narrative pushed: even a "terrible" coach can achieve results comparable to a renowned one when backed by a bona fide quarterback, raising the question of just how crucial coaching is in today's NFL. That's why I can't help but chuckle when people cite the Chargers as an example of coaching being paramount.
Nevertheless, your point about a coach's ability to identify and replace talent is critical, and something I completely agree with. In fact, along with establishing the right environment, it may be the most important aspect of coaching—far more than player development or scheming. Regarding development, players today are exposed to professional-level coaching early on through social media, player/coaching camps (think the Manning School), travel teams, and other apertures. The college game has evolved to closely mirror the pros, including coaching staffs with professional experience. By the time they reach the NFL, there isn't much they haven't already learned—this isn't the '80s or '90s, when the paradigm was very different.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that Staley is a better coach than Harbaugh, nor am I dismissing the positive impact Harbaugh can have. However, it remains puzzling that some fans give Harbaugh so much credit for achieving essentially the same results his predecessor did just two years earlier. The fundamental question remains - If coaching is so important, how did Staley achieve the same results as Harbaugh?
Matt - new coach who does not know his players who brings in a new staff, brings in new schemes and has to teach them while replacing a RB1, WR1 and WR2 has in my opinion accomplished more than someone doing it following a year of coaching them.
As fans we think just plug a guy in and he should automatically be productive especially rookies is automatic. Ladd was better as an NFL player than as a college player playing under a great coach and team. Seems to me he brought good skills but also got coached up.
In 2024, I believe the Chargers won more because of their D than their O. In an offensive driven league, they held opposing teams to 17 points or less in 10 of their 17 games.
Quote from: Jclayton92 on February 06, 2025, 01:11:01 PMA ton, Flores turned around a historically bad Vikings Defense in one year with virtually the same talent.
Jess,
That assertion is objectively false; the Vikings replaced more than half of their starting defense from 2023 to 2024:
Harrison Phillips Jerry Tillery
Jonathan Bullard Harrison Phillips
Danielle Hunter* Jonathan Bullard
Jordan Hicks Jonathan Greenard
Ivan Pace Ivan Pace Jr.
D.J. Wonnum Blake Cashman
Akayleb Evans Andrew Van Ginkel
Byron Murphy Stephon Gilmore
Camryn Bynum Harrison Smith
Harrison Smith Camryn Bynum
Josh Metellus Shaquill Griffin
The Vikings vastly improved their overall talent, especially young talent.
Quote from: Philosophers on February 06, 2025, 01:28:34 PMMatt - new coach who does not know his players who brings in a new staff, brings in new schemes and has to teach them while replacing a RB1, WR1 and WR2 has in my opinion accomplished more than someone doing it following a year of coaching them.
As fans we think just plug a guy in and he should automatically be productive especially rookies is automatic. Ladd was better as an NFL player than as a college player playing under a great coach and team. Seems to me he brought good skills but also got coached up.
In 2024, I believe the Chargers won more because of their D than their O. In an offensive driven league, they held opposing teams to 17 points or less in 10 of their 17 games.
Joe, it's a great response; however, you didn't answer my fundamental question. You explained Harbough success, but didn't explain Staley success. How was it the 2021 and 2022 Charges achieved similar records with a terrible HC?
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 06, 2025, 10:22:15 AMChris,
I am not going to presume to tell anyone how to be a fan. I will say that I have moved on from Daniel Jones. He isn't on the team, he isn't part of the plans for the team and he no longer impacts the team.
To me, it's about where the team is at and how the team can reach a point of being a contender.
As for the scheme, those open receivers came at a price, as Giants QBs were in the top quarter in terms of pressures per dropback (about 38% of the dropbacks per PFF. In other words, Daboll sacrificed protection (by not keeping guys in to protect) to create those open receivers. Unfortunately, QBs running for their lives are not always in the best position to reach their open receivers.
Probably not the best to use stats over 17 games to make generalizations about the first 9.
Example.
After the 5th game of the season, the pressure rate on the Giants QB was 20% and the OLine ranked 16th in sacks, pressure and pass blocking.
While technically what you say over 17 games is correct, the story within the story provides more insight as to who, what and why.
Quote from: babywhales on February 06, 2025, 01:37:07 PMProbably not the best to use stats over 17 games to make generalizations about the first 9.
Example.
After the 5th game of the season, the pressure rate on the Giants QB was 20% and the OLine ranked 16th in sacks, pressure and pass blocking.
While technically what you say over 17 games is correct, the story within the story provides more insight as to who, what and why.
DJ's dropback pressure rate was 37.2%, and Lock's was 38.6% That's why I was comfortable using the 38% number for the season and didn't feel the need to break it down by quarter.
You may not believe it, but I am pretty proficient in analytics. If you want to come at me claiming I don't know how to use data correctly, you will more often than not find you are barking up the wrong tree.
Before: The Vikings were 8-9 in 2021 under Mike Zimmer.
After: In Kevin O'Connell's first season (2022), the Vikings went 13-4 and won the NFC North.
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 06, 2025, 01:26:08 PMAre you referring to the narrative that coaching doesn't matter, which requires people to ignore actual facts?
Perhaps, if there was a single person here that ever said that. If they did, I sure haven't seen it.
Quote from: MrGap92 on February 06, 2025, 01:45:40 PMPerhaps, if there was a single person here that ever said that. If they did, I sure haven't seen it.
Matt
@kingm56 has been on a one-man multi-year crusade, arguing the value of coaching is over-rated and hardly matters at all. I can remember countless posts with poorly selected or misused stats made to down-play the accomplishments of various NFL coaches.
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 06, 2025, 01:42:07 PMDJ's dropback pressure rate was 37.2%, and Lock's was 38.6% That's why I was comfortable using the 38% number for the season and didn't feel the need to break it down by quarter.
You may not believe it, but I am pretty proficient in analytics. If you want to come at me claiming I don't know how to use data correctly, you will more often than not find you are barking up the wrong tree.
I will keep that in mind
Maybe next time I will be "barking up the wrong tree"
Quote from: kingm56 on February 06, 2025, 01:28:46 PMJess,
That assertion is objectively false; the Vikings replaced more than half of their starting defense from 2023 to 2024:
Harrison Phillips Jerry Tillery
Jonathan Bullard Harrison Phillips
Danielle Hunter* Jonathan Bullard
Jordan Hicks Jonathan Greenard
Ivan Pace Ivan Pace Jr.
D.J. Wonnum Blake Cashman
Akayleb Evans Andrew Van Ginkel
Byron Murphy Stephon Gilmore
Camryn Bynum Harrison Smith
Harrison Smith Camryn Bynum
Josh Metellus Shaquill Griffin
The Vikings vastly improved their overall talent, especially young talent.
I was talking about named talent, they let Hunter go their marquee guy, all they did was draft well but they didn't acquire anyone remarkable via trade or sign some huge guys in FA.
Quote from: kingm56 on February 06, 2025, 01:32:27 PMJoe, it's a great response; however, you didn't answer my fundamental question. You explained Harbough success, but didn't explain Staley success. How was it the 2021 and 2022 Charges achieved similar records with a terrible HC?
Strength of Schedule
2021 17th SOC and a 9-8 Record
2022 26th SOC and a 10-8 Record
2023 3rd SOC and a 5-12 Record
2024 22nd SOC and a 11-7 Record
You need a QB and a HC who connect, both do not need to be great individually but collectively they must connect.
You can have 1 QB succeed with multiple head coaches like Elway
or
you can have 1 HC succeed with multiple QBs like Joe Gibbs
You can have a great team with a bad coach (Switzer, Pederson, McCarthy )
You can win with a bad team and a great coach (2005 Steelers, 1988 49ers, 2001 Patriots, 2011 Giants)
you need coaching, a QB and a lot of luck
1 or 2 of the 3 will not get it done more often than not
Quote from: kingm56 on February 06, 2025, 01:32:27 PMJoe, it's a great response; however, you didn't answer my fundamental question. You explained Harbough success, but didn't explain Staley success. How was it the 2021 and 2022 Charges achieved similar records with a terrible HC?
Matt - what I think youbare driving at is Staley's success (really in 2022) is because of Herbert. Here is my response to Staley's 2022 success
1) the Chargers made NFL history having 6 players get 500 receiving yards and 3 TDs.
2) the Chargers were only 6-6 after 12 games but their defense ended up being ranked #1 from weeks 14 to 18 in 3rd down conversions where they limited opponents to only a 3rd down conversion rate of 15 out of 55 attempts during weeks 14-18. Their D was top 5 during weeks 14-18.
3. The Chargers were ballhawks with 24 takeaways and a +5 differential.
4. The Chargers punt coverage led the NFL in fewest yards allowed averaging only 3.1 yards per returned punt. That's incredible.
5. The Chargers went through 3 field goal kickers in 2022 due to injuries yet they still managed to be 2nd in the NFL at 94.3% of extra points and field goals made. They won 3 of their games with last minute game winning field goals. Pretty damn lucky if you ask me to maintain that kind of high accuracy kicking continuity across 3 different kickers.
6. Austin Ekeler had a monster season with 1,637 yards from scrimmage, led the NFL with 18 TDs and had 107 receptions.
7. Michael Davis stepped in as starting CB in 12 games over JC Jackson and managed to have 15 passes defended which was 6th best in the NFL. 12 of those 15 passes defended came in weeks 12-18 (remember Chargers were 6-6 after 12 games).
8. Safety Derwin James and LB David Truill were 2 of only 8 NFL players to generate 100 tackles, 4 sacks, 5 tackles for loss and an INT. Damn good to have 2 on a team's defense.
9. Over first 3 years (which includes 2022), Herbert passed for more yards and threw for more TDs than any other QB in NFL history.
I'd conclude from this a whole bunch of contributors and reasons toward that successful season.
Quote from: Philosophers on February 06, 2025, 08:48:21 PMMatt - what I think youbare driving at is Staley's success (really in 2022) is because of Herbert. Here is my response to Staley's 2022 success
1) the Chargers made NFL history having 6 players get 500 receiving yards and 3 TDs.
2) the Chargers were only 6-6 after 12 games but their defense ended up being ranked #1 from weeks 14 to 18 in 3rd down conversions where they limited opponents to only a 3rd down conversion rate of 15 out of 55 attempts during weeks 14-18. Their D was top 5 during weeks 14-18.
3. The Chargers were ballhawks with 24 takeaways and a +5 differential.
4. The Chargers punt coverage led the NFL in fewest yards allowed averaging only 3.1 yards per returned punt. That's incredible.
5. The Chargers went through 3 field goal kickers in 2022 due to injuries yet they still managed to be 2nd in the NFL at 94.3% of extra points and field goals made. They won 3 of their games with last minute game winning field goals. Pretty damn lucky if you ask me to maintain that kind of high accuracy kicking continuity across 3 different kickers.
6. Austin Ekeler had a monster season with 1,637 yards from scrimmage, led the NFL with 18 TDs and had 107 receptions.
7. Michael Davis stepped in as starting CB in 12 games over JC Jackson and managed to have 15 passes defended which was 6th best in the NFL. 12 of those 15 passes defended came in weeks 12-18 (remember Chargers were 6-6 after 12 games).
8. Safety Derwin James and LB David Truill were 2 of only 8 NFL players to generate 100 tackles, 4 sacks, 5 tackles for loss and an INT. Damn good to have 2 on a team's defense.
9. Over first 3 years (which includes 2022), Herbert passed for more yards and threw for more TDs than any other QB in NFL history.
I'd conclude from this a whole bunch of contributors and reasons toward that successful season.
Joe,
This response is why I truly value exchanging ideas with you. Such an articulate argument deserves a like response, which I don't have time for now. I'll respond tomorrow, if time permits. I just wanted to thank you for your reply.
Thanks Matt. Always appreciate and respect the dialogue with you.
A lot of the stuff I listed in the above post many of which most fans might not know are very different important nuances in a team's success and in generating wins. I dont assume things are evenly weighted or one factor is 90% of the reason for a team's success. Like I've said elsewhere, it's the entire batch of ingredients, which are used, which proportions to use and how long to cook that make a great dish.
I think a prime example of just how impactful coaching is, would be Dexter Lawerence. He was good but unspectacular for the first 3 years of his career. He gets coached up by the Giants' Andre Patterson (who is one of the best in the business), and now he is a very special All-Pro nose tackle
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 07, 2025, 07:44:57 AMI think a prime example of just how impactful coaching is, would be Dexter Lawerence. He was good but unspectacular for the first 3 years of his career. He gets coached up by the Giants' Andre Patterson (who is one of the best in the business), and now he is a very special All-Pro nose tackle
I think he was better than good
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 07, 2025, 07:44:57 AMI think a prime example of just how impactful coaching is, would be Dexter Lawerence. He was good but unspectacular for the first 3 years of his career. He gets coached up by the Giants' Andre Patterson (who is one of the best in the business), and now he is a very special All-Pro nose tackle
He had a terrible head coach though, and he had an iffy at best defensive coordinator. And yet he became what he is. So can a player be great if he has a terrible head coach and a less than ideal next-in-command as long as he has a solid position coach for a year or two? That argument seems a bit framed to me.
Andrew Thomas became an all pro offensive tackle on this team. His head coach was unquestionably terrible. His offensive coordinators/play callers were completely unsuccessful. The O line coach was considered a disaster during his ascent to all-pro status and and was unceremoniously run out of town. How exactly did Thomas become so good with all this supposedly horrible coaching around him? Was he just randomly lucky?
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on February 07, 2025, 11:02:40 PMHe had a terrible head coach though, and he had an iffy at best defensive coordinator. And yet he became what he is. So can a player be great if he has a terrible head coach and a less than ideal next-in-command as long as he has a solid position coach for a year or two? That argument seems a bit framed to me.
Andrew Thomas became an all pro offensive tackle on this team. His head coach was unquestionably terrible. His offensive coordinators/play callers were completely unsuccessful. The O line coach was considered a disaster during his ascent to all-pro status and and was unceremoniously run out of town. How exactly did Thomas become so good with all this supposedly horrible coaching around him? Was he just randomly lucky?
Why do owners spend millions and millions on coaches? Why are they always fired and hired? You guys are certainly entitled to your beliefs. I will confess, I find the idea that coaching isn't important, truly baffling. Then again, I am puzzled at the denial of a prime example of coaching making a huge difference. Still, if you guys want to believe only players really matter.... You be you
Maybe you guys can start a petition to end the coach and assistant coach of the year honors.
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 08, 2025, 06:14:17 AMWhy do owners spend millions and millions on coaches? Why are they always fired and hired? You guys are certainly entitled to your beliefs. I will confess, I find the idea that coaching isn't important, truly baffling. Then again, I am puzzled at the denial of a prime example of coaching making a huge difference. Still, if you guys want to believe only players really matter.... You be you
Maybe you guys can start a petition to end the coach and assistant coach of the year honors.
Rich,
I never said coaching isn't important or that "only players matter." You are putting words in my mouth and deliberately exaggerating my position (while conveniently opting to not answer the very reasonable question I asked you).
All I am trying to demonstrate here is that some players have the talent to overcome poor coaching, and on the flip side, that some are so untalented that even playing under the best coaches isn't going to make them good players.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on February 08, 2025, 06:22:43 AMRich,
I never said coaching isn't important or that "only players matter." You are putting words in my mouth and deliberately exaggerating my position (while conveniently opting to not answer the very reasonable question I asked you).
All I am trying to demonstrate here is that some players have the talent to overcome poor coaching, and on the flip side, that some are so untalented that even playing under the best coaches isn't going to make them good players.
Jeff,
Let's be fair. What you did was refuse to acknowledge and try to dismiss a prime example of a coach making a huge difference. I will confess that it's difficult to have quality conversations when you simply refuse to acknowledge evidence or a clear-cut point. That point is in no way diminished or incorrect because of the reality that coaches can't turn chicken poop into chicken salad, or, on rare occasions, a player will individually play well despite poor coaching.
I really don't understand why all the members of your little PM group find it so difficult to just acknowledge the reality that coaching matters, it matters a lot. Your exceptions don't create a rule; they are just that, exceptions
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 08, 2025, 06:33:53 AMJeff,
Let's be fair. What you did was refuse to acknowledge and try to dismiss a prime example of a coach making a huge difference. I will confess that it's difficult to have quality conversations when you simply refuse to acknowledge evidence or a clear-cut point. That point is in no way diminished or incorrect because of the reality that coaches can't turn chicken poop into chicken salad, or, on rare occasions, a player will individually play well despite poor coaching.
I really don't understand why all the members of your little PM group find it so difficult to just acknowledge the reality that coaching matters, it matters a lot. Your exceptions don't create a rule; they are just that, exceptions
I think coaching matters IMMENSELY. Look no further than Bill Parcells. Every single team he went to got better immediately. Every one. To me, the jury is still out in Daboll. Whereas he was proven correct on Jayden Daniels, he was also very wrong on his assessment of Jones. He also does a lot of strange things during games as has been hashed out in other threads. But ultimately we shall see.
As for your remark pertaining to "your little PM group"....if someone said that to you, you would call it an attack and a whole thing would ensue. Why can't we just have discussion and debate without tossing in a few barbs.
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 08, 2025, 06:33:53 AMJeff,
Let's be fair. What you did was refuse to acknowledge and try to dismiss a prime example of a coach making a huge difference. I will confess that it's difficult to have quality conversations when you simply refuse to acknowledge evidence or a clear-cut point. That point is in no way diminished or incorrect because of the reality that coaches can't turn chicken poop into chicken salad, or, on rare occasions, a player will individually play well despite poor coaching.
I really don't understand why all the members of your little PM group find it so difficult to just acknowledge the reality that coaching matters, it matters a lot. Your exceptions don't create a rule; they are just that, exceptions
Again, for some reason you continue to make false claims. Nowhere did I say coaching does not matter. Nor have I ever said that. Any claim to the contrary is a flat out lie.
Of course coaching matters. However I do not think it is more important than, or even equal to, the caliber of talent on the field.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on February 08, 2025, 06:52:54 AMAgain, for some reason you continue to make false claims. Nowhere did I say coaching does not matter. Nor have I ever said that. Any claim to the contrary is a flat out lie.
Of course coaching matters. However I do not think it is more important than, or even equal to, the caliber of talent on the field.
Perceived talent on the field is often a function of coaching. Hell, I have always said that coaching development of draft prospects is half the equation for success (or failure). We certainly can have a REASONED discussion and even disagreement about the overall importance of coaching. I disagree with your assertion that it's not equal to talent, but it's okay to disagree. The issue I have is when you and the other members of your group refuse to even acknowledge a fair and valid point.
You were so invested in trying to diminish the role coaches plays in the NFL you refused to credit Dex's D-line coach for the impressive and surprising improvements Dex made under his coaching.
If everyone were immensely talented, they'd all be the first pick of the NFL Draft.
Why was a 6th round pick who became the GOAT not the first pick of the first round? How did he become the GOAT?
He was taught and shown things - Coaching
He was willing to be coached - PLAYER
Somehow the messaging was said in a way that it was effectively internalized which translated into development - COACHING
He had some base level of physical metrics, talent and skills - PLAYER
He was mature - PLAYER
He plays in a scheme that maximizes his skill - COACHING
Somehow he eventually sees things from his position that his peers do not easily see - PLAYER
Somehow the game starts to slow down for him as he processes info - PLAYER from all of the above coming together.
This is how I see how players become great.
Quote from: Philosophers on February 08, 2025, 07:30:50 AMIf everyone were immensely talented, they'd all be the first pick of the NFL Draft.
Why was a 6th round pick who became the GOAT not the first pick of the first round? How did he become the GOAT?
He was taught and shown things - Coaching
He was willing to be coached - PLAYER
Somehow the messaging was said in a way that it was effectively internalized which translated into development - COACHING
He had some base level of physical metrics, talent and skills - PLAYER
He was mature - PLAYER
He plays in a scheme that maximizes his skill - COACHING
Somehow he eventually sees things from his position that his peers do not easily see - PLAYER
Somehow the game starts to slow down for him as he processes info - PLAYER from all of the above coming together.
This is how I see how players become great.
Joe,
I think that's a really good way at looking at the equation. Although sometimes the great coaches and certainly players will blur the lines. Remember Keyshon Johnson? It took a special coach like Bill Parcells to get the talent out of that mercurial player. Other coaches tried and it was a disaster.
Even LT, I think, under another coaching staff, could have easily crashed and burned with all his personal demons and issues.
Take Joe Montana. He may have had an obscure career as a backup QB if he didn't team up with Bill Walsh and (at the time) revolutionary West Coast offense.
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 08, 2025, 08:01:33 AMJoe,
I think that's a really good way at looking at the equation. Although sometimes the great coaches and certainly players will blur the lines. Remember Keyshon Johnson? It took a special coach like Bill Parcells to get the talent out of that mercurial player. Other coaches tried and it was a disaster.
Even LT, I think, under another coaching staff, could have easily crashed and burned with all his personal demons and issues.
Take Joe Montana. He may have had an obscure career as a backup QB if he didn't team up with Bill Walsh and (at the time) revolutionary West Coast offense.
It's the way I see things, rightly or wrongly.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on February 07, 2025, 11:02:40 PMHe had a terrible head coach though, and he had an iffy at best defensive coordinator. And yet he became what he is. So can a player be great if he has a terrible head coach and a less than ideal next-in-command as long as he has a solid position coach for a year or two? That argument seems a bit framed to me.
Andrew Thomas became an all pro offensive tackle on this team. His head coach was unquestionably terrible. His offensive coordinators/play callers were completely unsuccessful. The O line coach was considered a disaster during his ascent to all-pro status and and was unceremoniously run out of town. How exactly did Thomas become so good with all this supposedly horrible coaching around him? Was he just randomly lucky?
Very well stated, Jeff. You know your position is solid when the opposing side either refuses to answer, or worse, reframes the question or resorts to outright lies. Moreover, the notion that Lawrence's improvement is purely a byproduct of coaching suggests an overly narrow perspective that fails to account for other contributing factors. It also exemplifies the common mistake of conflating correlation with causation.
Dexter Lawrence's performance trajectory most logically follows the traditional development curve we see in top-tier defensive tackles, rather than being primarily attributable to coaching. Historically, college linemen—both offensive and defensive—often need extra time to adapt to the NFL's physical demands. While positions like wide receiver and cornerback hinge on speed and agility ("twitch"), linemen rely more on brute strength, technique, and gap discipline. It's common for even highly drafted interior linemen to see their biggest performance jump in Years 2–3, as they refine their skills and physically mature.
Empirical examples support this notion. For instance, Aaron Donald showed promise immediately but still saw his game evolve further in his second and third seasons. Chris Jones also went from 2.0 sacks as a rookie to 6.5 in his second year and then broke out fully in Year 3 with 15.5 sacks. Similarly, Fletcher Cox didn't become a truly dominant force until several years into his career. These cases align with the established principle that linemen, due to the nature of their responsibilities, often require a longer developmental timeline compared to other positions.
If coaching were the primary catalyst for Lawrence's improvement, we would expect a parallel rise in performance among similarly coached players. Yet, teammates like Woodrow Hamilton, Trent Harris, Raymond Johnson, and David Moa, among others, have not shown the same leap. Additionally, if Sean Spencer or Wink Martindale were uniquely responsible for engineering extraordinary growth, we might expect them to be retained or swiftly hired to other prominent NFL positions. Their lack of immediate rehire as top-tier defensive minds does not reinforce the notion that coaching alone accounted for Lawrence's surge.
In sum, the evidence suggests that Dexter Lawrence's leap is a product of natural, year-over-year progression rather than a miraculous coaching boost. The physical nature of trench warfare—where players need to develop the strength and technique to consistently beat seasoned NFL linemen—inevitably requires more time. Wide receivers, by contrast, often exhibit faster progress as their job is heavily predicated on twitch, route running, and timing. In fact, if you recall, I started a thread this offseason indicating we would know if Nabers was good or not based on his rookie performance, and my conclusions were based on the same analysis that wide receivers typically offer quicker insight into their long-term potential. Given these position-specific timelines, Lawrence's steady rise remains consistent with how most elite defensive tackles eventually come into their own.
Quote from: kingm56 on February 08, 2025, 12:46:06 PMVery well stated, Jeff. You know your position is solid when the opposing side either refuses to answer, or worse, reframes the question or resorts to outright lies. Moreover, the notion that Lawrence's improvement is purely a byproduct of coaching suggests an overly narrow perspective that fails to account for other contributing factors. It also exemplifies the common mistake of conflating correlation with causation.
Dexter Lawrence's performance trajectory most logically follows the traditional development curve we see in top-tier defensive tackles, rather than being primarily attributable to coaching. Historically, college linemen—both offensive and defensive—often need extra time to adapt to the NFL's physical demands. While positions like wide receiver and cornerback hinge on speed and agility ("twitch"), linemen rely more on brute strength, technique, and gap discipline. It's common for even highly drafted interior linemen to see their biggest performance jump in Years 2–3, as they refine their skills and physically mature.
Empirical examples support this notion. For instance, Aaron Donald showed promise immediately but still saw his game evolve further in his second and third seasons. Chris Jones also went from 2.0 sacks as a rookie to 6.5 in his second year and then broke out fully in Year 3 with 15.5 sacks. Similarly, Fletcher Cox didn't become a truly dominant force until several years into his career. These cases align with the established principle that linemen, due to the nature of their responsibilities, often require a longer developmental timeline compared to other positions.
If coaching were the primary catalyst for Lawrence's improvement, we would expect a parallel rise in performance among similarly coached players. Yet, teammates like Woodrow Hamilton, Trent Harris, Raymond Johnson, and David Moa, among others, have not shown the same leap. Additionally, if Sean Spencer or Wink Martindale were uniquely responsible for engineering extraordinary growth, we might expect them to be retained or swiftly hired to other prominent NFL positions. Their lack of immediate rehire as top-tier defensive minds does not reinforce the notion that coaching alone accounted for Lawrence's surge.
In sum, the evidence suggests that Dexter Lawrence's leap is a product of natural, year-over-year progression rather than a miraculous coaching boost. The physical nature of trench warfare—where players need to develop the strength and technique to consistently beat seasoned NFL linemen—inevitably requires more time. Wide receivers, by contrast, often exhibit faster progress as their job is heavily predicated on twitch, route running, and timing. In fact, if you recall, I started a thread this offseason indicating we would know if Nabers was good or not based on his rookie performance, and my conclusions were based on the same analysis that wide receivers typically offer quicker insight into their long-term potential. Given these position-specific timelines, Lawrence's steady rise remains consistent with how most elite defensive tackles eventually come into their own.
In this world, there are those who examine and accept evidence and use the evidence to form their opinions. Then there are those who have there opinions and form the evidence to match their opinions.
It's a shame for great coaches like Andre Patterson, that some fans refuse to acknowledge the fine work they do.
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 08, 2025, 02:45:20 PMIn this world, there are those who examine and accept evidence and use the evidence to form their opinions. Then there are those who have there opinions and form the evidence to match their opinions.
Agreed, and you will find no better example of this than in the multi-year back and forth debate in this forum around Daniel Jones.
I appreciate that are some people that are closed-minded and will ignore or dismiss this evidence, but for the rest:
As he's done in the past, Lawrence credited Giants defensive line coach Andre Patterson with helping him take his game to a whole new level, going from settling to be good to aspiring to be great.
"Honestly, Coach Dre (Patterson) kind of shifted my mindset to work on things I wasn't good at," Lawrence said. "Kudos to him for helping me think about things that I wasn't necessarily – you know, you go to your natural habits to do what you can to improve in the game."
Lawrence trained with private line coach Mark Hall and nine other first-round picks at the University of Oklahoma in July, a four-week grind-it-out for some of the premier interior linemen in the NFL. He worked alongside guys like the Packers' Kenny Clark, the Dolphins' Christian Wilkins and the 49ers' Arik Armstead, among others, and the changes in his game were evident.
"When Dex came to our summer camp at Oklahoma, I could see everything was falling into place for him," Hall told NorthJersey.com. "Just had a different feel to his game. We were studying film together, and he was getting more out of that than he ever had. He was talking a lot more, going in depth with what he was seeing. His football IQ was definitely rising. You could just tell that he was at another level, and I could see [the impact Patterson and the Giants' defensive staff had on Lawrence]. Did I expect this? This is elite stuff."
"Being quick, being fast with my hands and jumping on a guy before they can get on me," Lawrence said. "[Patterson has] pushed that on me mentally since we met. Keep playing long. Keep playing strong. Manipulate the shoulders. He slows it down where we're walking through it and it's just making everything click. I can see it after I do what he says, and that just motivates you to repeat it over and over, which is what I'm doing."
Lawrence paused before adding with a smile: "When you do that - that's when you dominate."
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 08, 2025, 03:44:05 PMI appreciate that are some people that are closed-minded and will ignore or dismiss this evidence, but for the rest:
Rich,
What's with the personal jabs at those who happen to not 100% agree with you on a particular topic? Do you honestly expect a chorus of unilateral agreement on every opinion you have?
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on February 08, 2025, 03:47:19 PMRich,
What's with the personal jabs at those who happen to not 100% agree with you on a particular topic? Do you honestly expect a chorus of unilateral agreement on every opinion you have?
It wasn't a jab; it was expressing frustration. If you want to know why I was frustrated, sign 10 of the 10 signs of intellectual honesty, says it perfectly
Quote10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.
To refuse to give credit to the D-line coach for Dex's incredible jump when even Dex himself acknowledges it is clearly an example of breaking rule ten.
Look, I don't know why you refused to acknowledge the point. Perhaps it's because I made the point. Your ally Matt would argue with me if I said the sky was blue. On the other hand, it could be because you don't believe coaching is as important as players; you just don't want to acknowledge the information. There could be another reason that I haven't even thought of.
In any event, it's pretty frustrating to present solid and reasonable evidence and examples, only to not be acknowledged and have them completely dismissed. Is your approach of the most likes from your PM buddies what's most important? Do you feel arguing and ignoring points made, weaponizing likes, and making snide comments about Daniel Jones is what this forum should be like?
Edit to add: Did I miss the part where you acknowledged the new evidence?
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 08, 2025, 04:09:56 PMIt wasn't a jab; it was expressing frustration. If you want to know why I was frustrated, sign 10 of the 10 signs of intellectual honesty, says it perfectly
To refuse to give credit to the D-line coach for Dex's incredible jump when even Dex himself acknowledges it is clearly an example of breaking rule ten.
Look, I don't know why you refused to acknowledge the point. Perhaps it's because I made the point. Your ally Matt would argue with me if I said the sky was blue. On the other hand, it could be because you don't believe coaching is as important as players; you just don't want to acknowledge the information. There could be another reason that I haven't even thought of.
In any event, it's pretty frustrating to present solid and reasonable evidence and examples, only to not be acknowledged and have them completely dismissed. Is your approach of the most likes from your PM buddies what's most important? Do you feel arguing and ignoring points made, weaponizing likes, and making snide comments about Daniel Jones is what this forum should be like?
Rich,
Considering that right from the get-go you chose to define my stance on this topic in a completely (and I suspect deliberately) false way, all of the above is misguided. It also highlights some real irony around the fact that you are the one handing out lectures on intellectual honesty. How intellectually honest is it to take someone else's opinion and completely bastardize it for the purposes of trying to strengthen your own position?
You made claims about me believing coaching doesn't matter, which of course I don't believe and never once said (in this thread or anywhere). Either you did not read what I wrote very carefully, or you intentionally chose to misrepresent and wildly exaggerate it. With that in mind, none of your subsequent criticism is legitimate or fair in any way.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on February 08, 2025, 04:30:40 PMRich,
Considering that right from the get-go you chose to define my stance on this topic in a completely (and I suspect deliberately) false way, all of the above is misguided. It also highlights some real irony around the fact that you are the one handing out lectures on intellectual honesty. How intellectually honest is it to take someone else's opinion and completely bastardize it for the purposes of trying to strengthen your own position?
You made claims about me believing coaching doesn't matter, which of course I don't believe and never once said (in this thread or anywhere). Either you did not read what I wrote very carefully, or you intentionally chose to misrepresent and wildly exaggerate it. With that in mind, none of your subsequent criticism is legitimate or fair in any way.
Jeff,
You're right; I broke my own rule, I guessed at your motive. What I know is that you refused to acknowledge the point that Patterson's coaching took Dex's play to a whole other level. Your questions and claims were an effort to dispute that evidence.
I really don't know what motivated you to argue with me and try and dismiss reality; only you know that. So I agree, I was wrong to assume you shared Matt's belief that coaching really doesn't matter in the NFL. Although I would say, it's frustrating to see actual facts and examples improperly dismissed, regardless of the motive.
I still can't help but note the irony that you accused me of a personal jab suggesting some people would ignore or dismiss the fact that Dex himself credits his coach wwhile literally ignoring that point.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on February 08, 2025, 03:43:42 PMAgreed, and you will find no better example of this than in the multi-year back and forth debate in this forum around Daniel Jones.
Excellent point
IMHO the word coaching means a lot of things.
1. Not limited to one person but the actions of many. A DL position coach may point out a weakness he sees in an opposing guard's technique and explain to a DT how he can take advantage of it in the upcoming game;
2. A S&C coach helping a DL to do certain strength exercises to get stronger in a certain way to help him better at his position;
3. A HC yelling at a DL in practice that he is loafing and that in the upcoming game his opponent is going to eat his lunch. So-called reverse motivation coaching
4. Coach realizing a DT may play better as a 4i than a 3T so playing him lore there.
Coaching is about some big things but lots of nuances. Again I may be wrong but that is why position coaches work weekly with their units.
Quote from: Philosophers on February 09, 2025, 08:19:31 AMIMHO the word coaching means a lot of things.
1. Not limited to one person but the actions of many. A DL position coach may point out a weakness he sees in an opposing guard's technique and explain to a DT how he can take advantage of it in the upcoming game;
2. A S&C coach helping a DL to do certain strength exercises to get stronger in a certain way to help him better at his position;
3. A HC yelling at a DL in practice that he is loafing and that in the upcoming game his opponent is going to eat his lunch. So-called reverse motivation coaching
4. Coach realizing a DT may play better as a 4i than a 3T so playing him lore there.
Coaching is about some big things but lots of nuances. Again I may be wrong but that is why position coaches work weekly with their units.
Joe,
The interaction between coach and player is a complex one. It's often difficult to see all the impacts. Take the Dex example I gave earlier. Had Dex not been teamed up with one of the best D-line coaches in the business who took his game to the next level, we all would have assumed Dex's ceiling was a good, but not quite, Pro-Bowl caliber interior D-lineman.
Still, there is a reason why the great head coaches tend to win more games than they lose. Take the top 10 coaches in terms of wins. It's pretty clear these guys were an important part of their own success and weren't just given great rosters all their careers
Don Shula
George Halas
Bill Belichick
Andy Reid
Tom Landry
Curly Lambeau
Marty Schottenheimer
Chuck Noll
Dan Reeves
Chuck Knox
Their total wins ran from 386 to 186
Speaking of Dan Reeves, remember how he took the roster Ray Handley ran into the ground and produced a playoff birth?
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 09, 2025, 08:33:42 AMJoe,
The interaction between coach and player is a complex one. It's often difficult to see all the impacts. Take the Dex example I gave earlier. Had Dex not been teamed up with one of the best D-line coaches in the business who took his game to the next level, we all would have assumed Dex's ceiling was a good, but not quite, Pro-Bowl caliber interior D-lineman.
Still, there is a reason why the great head coaches tend to win more games than they lose. Take the top 10 coaches in terms of wins. It's pretty clear these guys were an important part of their own success and weren't just given great rosters all their careers
Don Shula
George Halas
Bill Belichick
Andy Reid
Tom Landry
Curly Lambeau
Marty Schottenheimer
Chuck Noll
Dan Reeves
Chuck Knox
Their total wins ran from 386 to 186
Speaking of Dan Reeves, remember how he took the roster Ray Handley ran into the ground and produced a playoff birth?
To add to that Rich, take I think it's I think Alex Gibbs when he coached the OL of the Broncos for many years. I believe all their RBs were late round draft picks because their OL operated so well they never needed to spend a 1st rounder on a RB and that was using many different OL players over the years.
Sounds like Patterson has a big role in Dex's accession.
Sounds like a brilliant appointment by the JS/BD regime.
Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on February 09, 2025, 09:51:15 AMSounds like Patterson has a big role in Dex's accession.
Sounds like a brilliant appointment by the JS/BD regime.
Ed,
Maybe the Giants are an outlier (not that I have heard indications that they are), but usually, the coordinator has a significant role in assembling his coaching staff. I would think that would be especially true with an experienced DC link Wink. So I would add his name to the list of men responsible for the hire.
Also, according to the reports from Schoen and Daboll at the time, I don't think Schoen had any role in the hiring of coaches beyond Daboll. They needed to hit the ground running when they were hired, and Schoen focused on scouting (both pro and college), free agency, and the draft, while Daboll focused on building a coaching staff and developing schemes.
I'm sure Wink did have an input, but I wonder how much. Patterson clearly wasn't in Wink's inner conclave of clandestine stuff otherwise he would have been out the door and and potentially not in the NFL, like Wink.
Personally, there's so much bashing of the Giants management, a little positivity/credit is nice to see. They were dealt an horrific mess to begin with (both cap and personnel) and whilst they've made some poor decisions, I see little point in flogging a dead horse.
Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on February 09, 2025, 10:27:23 AMI'm sure Wink did have an input, but I wonder how much. Patterson clearly wasn't in Wink's inner conclave of clandestine stuff otherwise he would have been out the door and and potentially not in the NFL, like Wink.
Personally, there's so much bashing of the Giants management, a little positivity/credit is nice to see. They were dealt an horrific mess to begin with (both cap and personnel) and whilst they've made some poor decisions, I see little point in flogging a dead horse.
Ed, I am not sure when Schoen and Daboll have had three years and complete freedom to shape the team and produce the worst record in the league, it's appropriate to suggest criticizing the job the two of them have done constitutes "bashing."
I didn't say Daboll didn't deserve credit but I also don't think you should ignore Wink's role in an effort boost Shoen and Daboll.
Speaking of coaches, (I don't know if it's a new show or not)....but I watched ESPN 30 for 30 last night called B&B which was about Parcells and Bellichick. A lot of behind the scenes Giants days.
A must see for any Giants fan
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 09, 2025, 10:32:08 AMEd, I am not sure when Schoen and Daboll have had three years and complete freedom to shape the team and produce the worst record in the league, it's appropriate to suggest criticizing the job the two of them have done constitutes "bashing."
I didn't say Daboll didn't deserve credit but I also don't think you should ignore Wink's role in an effort boost Shoen and Daboll.
Wink turned out to be a catastrophic appointment.
Yes, they've had 3 years. Mirred with a woeful cap situation from Solder, Golladay and others. Generally, very poor play at the QB position.
But all of this has been stated elsewhere. We can just disagree.
Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on February 09, 2025, 10:34:29 AMWink turned out to be a catastrophic appointment.
Yes, they've had 3 years. Mirred with a woeful cap situation from Solder, Golladay and others. Generally, very poor play at the QB position.
But all of this has been stated elsewhere. We can just disagree.
Regardless of those issues, they were gifted Leo Williams, Dexter, Saquon, Andrew Thomas, Xavier McKenny, Julian Love, and 10 draft picks in their first draft (including the 5th and 7th), yet somehow managed to make the team they inherited even worse.
So we certainly can agree to disagree, but I don't think it's fair to suggest those who are critical of the objectively bad job Schoen and Daboll have done are "bashing" them.
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 09, 2025, 11:18:43 AMRegardless of those issues, they were gifted Leo Williams, Dexter, Saquon, Andrew Thomas, Xavier McKenny, Julian Love, and 10 draft picks in their first draft (including the 5th and 7th), yet somehow managed to make the team they inherited even worse.
So we certainly can agree to disagree, but I don't think it's fair to suggest those who are critical of the objectively bad job Schoen and Daboll have done are "bashing" them.
Wink did a great job at Michigan in his first year. He was good before the Giants. I really wonder if there was some bad dynamic between he and Dabs that affected the D.
Quote from: Philosophers on February 09, 2025, 11:51:01 AMWink did a great job at Michigan in his first year. He was good before the Giants. I really wonder if there was some bad dynamic between he and Dabs that affected the D.
Wink is a good coach. He can be a bit tricky to work with, but from all I heard, it was as much on Daboll as it was on Wink. Notice that despite adding Brian Burns, Dru Phillips, and Tyler Nubin (with only the loss of McKinney) the defense didn't really play any better.
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 09, 2025, 11:18:43 AMRegardless of those issues, they were gifted Leo Williams, Dexter, Saquon, Andrew Thomas, Xavier McKenny, Julian Love, and 10 draft picks in their first draft (including the 5th and 7th), yet somehow managed to make the team they inherited even worse.
So we certainly can agree to disagree, but I don't think it's fair to suggest those who are critical of the objectively bad job Schoen and Daboll have done are "bashing" them.
Which I think also points to simply how important the QB is. Despite all that talent, mostly on the D, the offense and the team in general, have been awful.
Hopefully, with the addition of Nabers and Tracey, a competent, if unspectacular, QB and the tide my turn.
Whatever the case, I'm looking forward to finding out.
Quote from: Philosophers on February 09, 2025, 11:51:01 AMWink did a great job at Michigan in his first year. He was good before the Giants. I really wonder if there was some bad dynamic between he and Dabs that affected the D.
A person with his experience can certainly stand out when dealing at a lesser level.
Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on February 09, 2025, 11:56:16 AMWhich I think also points to simply how important the QB is. Despite all that talent, mostly on the D, the offense and the team in general, have been awful.
Hopefully, with the addition of Nabers and Tracey, a competent, if unspectacular, QB and the tide my turn.
Whatever the case, I'm looking forward to finding out.
The pair had 3 years to find a franchise QB. How did that go? How many QBs have they drafted over the past three drafts? They signed a pretty good FA QB in Tyrod (although admittedly a bit injury-prone) and managed to alienate him by benching him for Tommy Cutlets. They signed Devito and Lock.
How would you grade the pair's effort to acquire the position you are saying is so critical (not that I disagree that QB is important)?
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 09, 2025, 12:00:05 PMThe pair had 3 years to find a franchise QB. How did that go? How many QBs have they drafted over the past three drafts? They signed a pretty good FA QB in Tyrod (although admittedly a bit injury-prone) and managed to alienate him by benching him for Tommy Cutlets. They signed Devito and Lock.
How would you grade the pair's effort to acquire the position you are saying is so critical (not that I disagree that QB is important)?
In fairness, if the point was to win games. How many games did Tyrod win as a Giant? I remember one against Washington, but any others? DeVito had 3 wins. So perhaps they made the correct call, if the point is to win games.
There was no way they were spending a high draft pick after the ridiculous Jones contact was given. I'm sure you're well aware of that fact.
They quickly identify it was an awful contract and made overtures about the 3rd all overall pick - widely assumed to target Maye/Daniels as Williams was widely accepted to go first overall. All of this I'm sure you're aware of.
Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on February 09, 2025, 12:19:12 PMIn fairness, if the point was to win games. How many games did Tyrod win as a Giant? I remember one against Washington, but any others? DeVito had 3 wins. So perhaps they made the correct call, if the point is to win games.
There was no way they were spending a high draft pick after the ridiculous Jones contact was given. I'm sure you're well aware of that fact.
They quickly identify it was an awful contract and made overtures about the 3rd all overall pick - widely assumed to target Maye/Daniels as Williams was widely accepted to go first overall. All of this I'm sure you're aware of.
They tried to trade up reportedly for Drake Maye last year, and then passed on JJ and Nix (along with Penix)
Why assume teams are limited to only high picks for QBs. There are plenty of day 2 and even day 3 picks that have become starters. The Giants didn't draft Brock Purdy, for example. They didn't take a flyer last year on Rattler or Milton, which is another example.
I was listening to Todd McShay talk about how coaches like Bill Parcells and Andy Reid were always drafting QBs. Worst case, you waste a low-round pick, better case, you get a cheap backup, best case you find a starter, and either you solve a problem or you have one to trade.
I am also not giving Schoen and Daboll credit for quickly identifying the contract they negotiated was a "bad one".
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 09, 2025, 12:32:48 PMThey tried to trade up reportedly for Drake Maye last year, and then passed on JJ and Nix (along with Penix)
Why assume teams are limited to only high picks for QBs. There are plenty of day 2 and even day 3 picks that have become starters. The Giants didn't draft Brock Purdy, for example. They didn't take a flyer last year on Rattler or Milton, which is another example.
I was listening to Todd McShay talk about how coaches like Bill Parcells and Andy Reid were always drafting QBs. Worst case, you waste a low-round pick, better case, you get a cheap backup, best case you find a starter, and either you solve a problem or you have one to trade.
I am also not giving Schoen and Daboll credit for quickly identifying the contract they negotiated was a "bad one".
We constantly talk of lack of depth and the value of draft capital. I'm not up for them wasting on day 2-3 QB fliers. They have enough holes.
Reid has drafted 3 quarterbacks sine 2014. So it's not fair to say he's "always drafting QBs". Granted, one of those is in the GOAT conversation but the other two are the epitome of wasted picks in Murray and Hogan.
Yes, passed on Nix and Penix. Save for Ed V,on Nix, I don't recall a single person banging the drum for them.
I'm also mindful of drawing any meaningful conclusions on them from a small sample. Yes, Nix had a fantastic year and Penix had some success - let's see where both are in 2-3 years or longer.
I've said it before and I will say it again. The Giants will regret passing on JJ. I know with his injury he was out so has not proven anything yet in the NFL. After next season, folks will see that he should have been taken.
Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on February 09, 2025, 12:45:22 PMWe constantly talk of lack of depth and the value of draft capital. I'm not up for them wasting on day 2-3 QB fliers. They have enough holes.
Reid has drafted 3 quarterbacks sine 2014. So it's not fair to say he's "always drafting QBs". Granted, one of those is in the GOAT conversation but the other two are the epitome of wasted picks in Murray and Hogan.
Yes, passed on Nix and Penix. Save for Ed V,on Nix, I don't recall a single person banging the drum for them.
I'm also mindful of drawing any meaningful conclusions on them from a small sample. Yes, Nix had a fantastic year and Penix had some success - let's see where both are in 2-3 years or longer.
I am not doing McShay's explanation justice. So I am posting an AI description of the strategy.
The philosophy of
always drafting quarterbacks in the NFL is based on the belief that quarterbacks are the most valuable asset in football. Even if a team already has a franchise quarterback, consistently drafting QBs ensures a pipeline of talent, trade leverage, and roster security. Here's why some teams and executives adopt this mindset:
Key Reasons Behind the Philosophy- Quarterback is the Most Important Position
- The modern NFL revolves around elite quarterback play. A team can only go as far as its quarterback allows.
- Injuries, regression, or contract disputes can derail a team, so having a steady flow of QB talent prevents setbacks.
- Drafting Quarterbacks Maximizes Value
- QBs have the highest trade value in the league. Even if a drafted QB doesn't become a starter, they can be flipped for draft capital or other assets.
- Teams have successfully traded backup QBs for premium picks (e.g., the Patriots trading Jimmy Garoppolo and Jacoby Brissett).
- Development and Depth
- Not every QB is ready to start immediately. Having a young QB learn behind an established starter ensures long-term stability.
- If a team's starter gets injured, a strong backup prevents a lost season.
- Avoiding the "QB Desperation Cycle"
- Teams that wait until they need a quarterback often overpay in trades or draft capital (e.g., the Panthers trading up for Bryce Young).
- Always drafting QBs ensures a team never reaches a crisis point at the position.
- Competition Breeds Success
- Having multiple quarterbacks on the roster creates competition, pushing all players to improve.
- If a high draft pick underperforms, a late-round QB could emerge as a better option.
- QB-Friendly Rule Changes
- The modern NFL favors passing offenses, making the quarterback position more valuable than ever.
- Teams that consistently invest in QBs adapt better to league trends.
Teams That Have Used This Approach- Green Bay Packers – Drafted Aaron Rodgers despite having Brett Favre, then drafted Jordan Love despite Rodgers still playing at a high level.
- New England Patriots – Consistently drafted QBs under Bill Belichick, including Jimmy Garoppolo, Jacoby Brissett, and Mac Jones.
- Philadelphia Eagles – Drafted Jalen Hurts despite having Carson Wentz, leading to long-term stability.
ConclusionThe philosophy of always drafting quarterbacks isn't about replacing the starter—it's about maximizing value, maintaining depth, and future-proofing the team. In a league where QB play determines success, having options at the position is never a bad strategy.
Ok, three teams use this approach.
Pats have one play off berth post Brady.
Packers have one title since 09
Eagles, yes - very successful over the last half decade both with Wentz then drafting Hurts.
But that doesn't address my points that Reid doesn't do it, which was claimed in your response.
Ultimately, there's more than one way to skin a cat to achieve a superbowl. I'm just not convinced the way the Pats and Pack have done it is the right way.
Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on February 09, 2025, 01:26:15 PMOk, three teams use this approach.
Pats have one play off berth post Brady.
Packers have one title since 09
Eagles, yes - very successful over the last half decade both with Wentz then drafting Hurts.
But that doesn't address my points that Reid doesn't do it, which was claimed in your response.
Ultimately, there's more than one way to skin a cat to achieve a superbowl. I'm just not convinced the way the Pats and Pack have done it is the right way.
I was mistaken, Todd said Bill Parcells and Bill Walsh
If you go to the 31:20 mark you can hear what McShay was talking about. It's not a long segment, but I did find the idea compelling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycQ3MHiJZow
If you have a 28 year old ELI as your starter and you draft a QB in round 4, you wasted a draft pick because he wont beat out Eli and at 28 you have Eli for another decade. If you use the 4th round pick on another position you may draft a starter.
Quote from: Philosophers on February 09, 2025, 01:31:21 PMIf you have a 28 year old ELI as your starter and you draft a QB in round 4, you wasted a draft pick because he wont beat out Eli and at 28 you have Eli for another decade. If you use the 4th round pick on another position you may draft a starter.
A draft pick (at less than a million) is cheaper than a veteran QB who runs you $5 million or so. Plus, if the pick pans out, he could bring back more draft capital than what was spent.
To circle back to the situation at hand. The 2 year escape clause indicates that Schoen and Daboll were not sure they had a franchise QB. So why didn't they draft at least one QB in the last 3 drafts. I forgot Hooker as another prospect they passed on with a day 3 pick.
Quote from: MightyGiants on February 09, 2025, 01:36:27 PMA draft pick (at less than a million) is cheaper than a veteran QB who runs you $5 million or so. Plus, if the pick pans out, he could bring back more draft capital than what was spent.
To circle back to the situation at hand. The 2 year escape clause indicates that Schoen and Daboll were not sure they had a franchise QB. So why didn't they draft at least one QB in the last 3 drafts. I forgot Hooker as another prospect they passed on with a day 3 pick.
Rich - bad teams need starters