Big Blue Huddle

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