Big Blue Huddle

Quote from: MightyGiants on January 07, 2025, 10:49:27 AMIt would make the most sense to move him to guard; his pass blocking at OT is simply not good enough.   That means the Giants need a high-end swing tackle and at least one developmental tackle, but it doesn't make sense to trot Neal out another season as a tackle.

I agree .. I just feel like its a royal screwup to not at least get a sample this season... if Van Rotten goes it would have been nice to see how Neal would look next season

If he gave us 3 maybe even just 2 games at Guard and looked decent that would have been money the Giants could save for another position of need

Quote from: MightyGiants on January 07, 2025, 09:58:04 AMWell, that is another factor in team building.  How injury-prone are your players?  How good is your depth?  How good is your team at keeping your players healthy and on the field?

Rich: It would take an eon to accomplish, but the most accurate way IMO to make the chart meaningful is to, first, determine what percentage of quarters each OL was available to be put on the field and multiple that percentage by the player's salary.

That gives you the total money paid for OL's who were available to play.  Then you compare to PFF score (or any other factor) to see which teams got the most for their money.

To save time & get a rough estimate you could use number of games available rather than number of quarters, but since football has so few games in a season I think the results would be skewed by an unacceptably large percentage if games available were used to make the calculation.

Bob

Quote from: Bob In PA on January 07, 2025, 11:24:56 AMRich: It would take an eon to accomplish, but the most accurate way IMO to make the chart meaningful is to, first, determine what percentage of quarters each OL was available to be put on the field and multiple that percentage by the player's salary.

That gives you the total money paid for OL's who were available to play.  Then you compare to PFF score (or any other factor) to see which teams got the most for their money.

To save time & get a rough estimate you could use number of games available rather than number of quarters, but since football has so few games in a season I think the results would be skewed by an unacceptably large percentage if games available were used to make the calculation.

Bob

Bob,

Wouldn't money spent be independent of injury?  After all, if you spend on a big-ticket free agent and they get hurt, you still spent the money.

So, the Giants spent the correct amount of money but didn't get the performance they should have for what they spent.

Why?  Was it injuries?

Quote from: jimc on January 07, 2025, 11:32:50 AMSo, the Giants spent the correct amount of money but didn't get the performance they should have for what they spent.

Why?  Was it injuries?

A combination of injuries, not great FA signings (a difficult position to fill via free agency), and missing on a first and third-round draft pick (draft picks cost less than free agents).

Quote from: MightyGiants on January 07, 2025, 11:31:54 AMBob,

Wouldn't money spent be independent of injury?  After all, if you spend on a big-ticket free agent and they get hurt, you still spent the money.

Rich: You always ask good questions. If it's independent of injury you're penalizing a GM who is just plain unlucky with unpredictable injuries. I get what you're saying... spending a lot of money on injury-prone players is super-wasteful and deserves to included somewhere in the calculation, if possible. Doing it my way gives you a better sense of the GM's success/failure IMO. In any event, it was the situation of Andrew Thomas that shows the flaws in doing it strictly by money spent, since he's the most expensive OL and he was available for the fewest number of quarters of all OL's this season. Bob

Quote from: Bob In PA on January 07, 2025, 11:41:05 AMRich: You always ask good questions. If it's independent of injury you're penalizing a GM who is just plain unlucky with unpredictable injuries. I get what you're saying... spending a lot of money on injury-prone players is super-wasteful and deserves to included somewhere in the calculation, if possible. Doing it my way gives you a better sense of the GM's success/failure IMO. In any event, it was the situation of Andrew Thomas that shows the flaws in doing it strictly by money spent, since he's the most expensive OL and he was available for the fewest number of quarters of all OL's this season. Bob

Your point about luck makes sense on the single-season capture (which we are talking about here).  If we were to capture a bigger data set, then I would argue the GMs are more responsible for their "luck."

Quote from: Bob In PA on January 07, 2025, 11:41:05 AMRich: You always ask good questions. If it's independent of injury you're penalizing a GM who is just plain unlucky with unpredictable injuries. I get what you're saying... spending a lot of money on injury-prone players is super-wasteful and deserves to included somewhere in the calculation, if possible. Doing it my way gives you a better sense of the GM's success/failure IMO. In any event, it was the situation of Andrew Thomas that shows the flaws in doing it strictly by money spent, since he's the most expensive OL and he was available for the fewest number of quarters of all OL's this season. Bob

Andrew Thomas has a documented history of foot and ankle issues going back to college. He talked about signing long-term (and taking less money) with the Giants early to mitigate against his injury risk. So at what point does a GM need to be responsible for factoring injury risk into his roster building plans? Or, do you see injury as completely random?

Quote from: Bob In PA on January 07, 2025, 09:55:20 AMThis analysis is interesting, but useless when your best/highest-paid OL misses most of the season. Bob

Andrew Thomas:

2020 - Played 15 of 16 games (Missed one game due to team suspension)
2021 - Played 13 of 17 games (Missed four games due to left ankle injury)
2022 - Played 18 of 19 games (Not active for Wk. #17)
2023 - Played 10 of 17 games (Missed seven games due to hamstring injury)
2024 - Played  6 of 17 games (Missed 11 of 17 games due to Lisfranc injury)

Available games: 86
Played games: 62
Missed games (other): 2
Total Lost Games Due to Injury: 22
% Lost Games Due to Injury vs. Available: 25.6%

25.6% for his entire career with the Giants, 18 games out of 34 Lost AFTER signing that big contract.

Andrew Thomas on his Recovery from Foot Injury

Peace!

Best place to be on either charts is top left and the worst is bottom right. No surprise after a 3 win season we are bottom right for both. The really painful thing is it feels like our line played much better than it did last year and the year before. I guess we got so accustomed to being hot garbage that simply being bad feels luxurious.

Quote from: madbadger on January 07, 2025, 03:16:47 PMBest place to be on either charts is top left and the worst is bottom right no surprise after a 3 win season we are bottom right for both. The really painful thing is it feels like our line played much better than it did last year and the year before. I guess we got so accustomed to being hot garbage that simply being bad feels luxurious.

Sometimes, it feels like it's more than the fans.   It sometimes feels like the people who own and run the team are falling into the same trap.

Quote from: Doc16LT56 on January 07, 2025, 11:52:42 AMAndrew Thomas has a documented history of foot and ankle issues going back to college. He talked about signing long-term (and taking less money) with the Giants early to mitigate against his injury risk. So at what point does a GM need to be responsible for factoring injury risk into his roster building plans? Or, do you see injury as completely random?

Doc: No GM is a soothsayer. I see unforeseeable injuries as completely random, while players with an Injury history in college are a tough call for anyone.

Doctors might say all is well, so you go for it but the doc is proven wrong (there's more guesswork in rendering a medical prognosis than most folks realize).

For what GM's get paid, you MUST assign some "blame" to them when a team continually leads the league (or is close to the top) in injuries and time spent unavailable to play (even Daboll has "availability" as one of his main points) but it's IMO a lot more luck, generally, than any other factor.

Bob

Quote from: kartanoman on January 07, 2025, 02:15:16 PM25.6% for his entire career with the Giants, 18 games out of 34 Lost AFTER signing that big contract.

Andrew Thomas on his Recovery from Foot Injury

Peace!

It's probably not that far off from the league wide missed game average.

Quote from: kartanoman on January 07, 2025, 02:15:16 PMAndrew Thomas:

2020 - Played 15 of 16 games (Missed one game due to team suspension)
2021 - Played 13 of 17 games (Missed four games due to left ankle injury)
2022 - Played 18 of 19 games (Not active for Wk. #17)
2023 - Played 10 of 17 games (Missed seven games due to hamstring injury)
2024 - Played  6 of 17 games (Missed 11 of 17 games due to Lisfranc injury)

Available games: 86
Played games: 62
Missed games (other): 2
Total Lost Games Due to Injury: 22
% Lost Games Due to Injury vs. Available: 25.6%

25.6% for his entire career with the Giants, 18 games out of 34 Lost AFTER signing that big contract.

Andrew Thomas on his Recovery from Foot Injury

Peace!

k-man: A valid point, well-demonstrated. Thanks for doing the work on this. Bob

Quote from: MightyGiants on January 07, 2025, 10:27:56 AMThere is an old saying that teams who are most successful drafting QBs are the ones drafting one when they don't need one.  I think that saying rings true because it's better not to be shopping hungry or drafting for need.

Toward the end fo the Jerry Reese era, he neglected the O-line as it got progressively older.  Sure, he would take a few day 3 flyers, but unfortunately, none of them panned out.  His strategy of drafting college tackles and moving them to guard did not bear fruit.

So by the end of the Reese era and through the next two GMs, this team had been starving when they were buying groceries.  The need was overwhelming and, I suspect, played a significant role in many of the swings and misses.

I think it takes time to build up a quality O-line, yet both Gettleman and Schoen tried to fix it over-night (technically in their first offseason).   Once you build a line, I think it's prudent for a team to spend at least a day two pick (or equivalent) in every draft so there is a steady stream of young talent to provide depth and replacements for older players who either cost too much or are getting too old.

Of course, the other big factor is the O-line coach.  Although I will confess that I am surprised the O-line coach ran out of town last off-season is doing quite well with the Washington Commanders.  That suggests some sort of yet identified systemic issue.

Rich, not necessarily. Some teams have much better talent evaluation at certain positions. I remember KC revamped their O line and got much better the next year.., I am sure there are others. Schoen and company can not draft good O linemen, or keep the ones they have (Zeitler balling in Detroit), if their lives depended on it... they are clueless!