Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Invest in OL to ensure Eli has a 20 yr career?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Drez View Post
    The one thing I didn't like was Baas' restructure this year. To me it just seemed like throwing good money after bad.
    How's that?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TCHOF View Post
      How's that?
      He hasn't played very well at all and already had a very high cap number. This restructure, by creating more dead money, just makes it all the harder to move on from him if his poor play continues.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sovereign View Post
        I also find it annoying but it is what it is.
        and yet he criticized Eli when he became GM even though he knows deep down Eli lets him get away with a terrible o line.

        Comment


        • Preface: I don't know what's been covered in this thread, so this post might be repeating/piggy-backing off of what others have already said.

          Investing in a position will make that position stronger. Stronger positions make a football team better.

          That's the logical framework which this thread rests upon, and it's water-tight, no question.

          You need to ask yourself however, would investing in the OL be the best improvement to the football team? I've spent the better part of this offseason trying to convince posters that Eli can excel with a sub-par line, if his skill position players are reaching their potential. Last year, we finally saw a full year of a solid LT (traditionally the most important line component), to which we even rewarded him with a new contract. Our OL was improved in sack numbers, and pressures (credit: PFF), from 2011.

          Is it unreasonable to ask Eli to play to 2011 potential again? Of course not. I'm not willing to say Eli is in a decline, and with the money he will be reeling in the next couple of years, I hope for damn sure he isn't. We're actually giving Eli more help than 2011, so he's in a better position to succeed than that year. We're looking to extend Cruz's contract, we locked up his LT for five years, Nicks will certainly be extended at some point, we took a WR second round last year -- point being, we're not putting it all in Eli's hands, or more accurately, to the extent we did in 2011.

          As I previously mentioned, investing in any positional group would strengthen the team, but to varying extent. If we invest in a backup QB, our QB group will be greater -- but that's going to the extreme, so if we invest in LBers, we'll have a better LB corps, and that will strengthen our defense. If we invest in our DL, that will strengthen our defense as well.

          I feel I've aptly demonstrated that Eli, with a healthy Cruz/Nicks, can overshadow line deficiencies, but honestly, I could care less if Eli hits twenty pro years. I want championships, and while I understand that Eli is a big part in our success equation, I do ultimately conclude it's a team game.

          So if the value is there, Warmack for instance, I wouldn't be upset if they pulled the trigger. Yet with modern day passing games, I would be more at ease if we chose to invest in our secondary, or our defensive line and let Eli's prime, and all the other offensive talent we've assembled handle themselves.
          My body was sculpted to the proportions of Michelangelo's David.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by gmen0820 View Post
            Preface: I don't know what's been covered in this thread, so this post might be repeating/piggy-backing off of what others have already said.

            Investing in a position will make that position stronger. Stronger positions make a football team better.

            That's the logical framework which this thread rests upon, and it's water-tight, no question.

            You need to ask yourself however, would investing in the OL be the best improvement to the football team? I've spent the better part of this offseason trying to convince posters that Eli can excel with a sub-par line, if his skill position players are reaching their potential. Last year, we finally saw a full year of a solid LT (traditionally the most important line component), to which we even rewarded him with a new contract. Our OL was improved in sack numbers, and pressures (credit: PFF), from 2011.

            Is it unreasonable to ask Eli to play to 2011 potential again? Of course not. I'm not willing to say Eli is in a decline, and with the money he will be reeling in the next couple of years, I hope for damn sure he isn't. We're actually giving Eli more help than 2011, so he's in a better position to succeed than that year. We're looking to extend Cruz's contract, we locked up his LT for five years, Nicks will certainly be extended at some point, we took a WR second round last year -- point being, we're not putting it all in Eli's hands, or more accurately, to the extent we did in 2011.

            As I previously mentioned, investing in any positional group would strengthen the team, but to varying extent. If we invest in a backup QB, our QB group will be greater -- but that's going to the extreme, so if we invest in LBers, we'll have a better LB corps, and that will strengthen our defense. If we invest in our DL, that will strengthen our defense as well.

            I feel I've aptly demonstrated that Eli, with a healthy Cruz/Nicks, can overshadow line deficiencies, but honestly, I could care less if Eli hits twenty pro years. I want championships, and while I understand that Eli is a big part in our success equation, I do ultimately conclude it's a team game.

            So if the value is there, Warmack for instance, I wouldn't be upset if they pulled the trigger. Yet with modern day passing games, I would be more at ease if we chose to invest in our secondary, or our defensive line and let Eli's prime, and all the other offensive talent we've assembled handle themselves.
            I don't care if we have a stud OL, I just want an average to good OL.

            Comment


            • not many teams in the league have outstanding olines .there are a good amount of mediocre to average ones and a few that are a little above average. the giants before these last few years were forutnate to have a solid working o-line for a long amount of time. but due to age of said o-line they have had to try and rebuild it these last few years. i don't think it's easy as some people think to build an oline. it takes time to find the right guys and for all them to gel together to form one solid unit.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Drez View Post
                I don't care if we have a stud OL, I just want an average to good OL.
                So what are the levels? Average-Good-Stud?
                My body was sculpted to the proportions of Michelangelo's David.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by gmen0820 View Post
                  So what are the levels? Average-Good-Stud?
                  The levels would be, better than we have fielded the past two seasons, but not necessarily all world, either.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Drez View Post
                    The levels would be, better than we have fielded the past two seasons, but not necessarily all world, either.
                    That's pretty vague though, how much improvement would you like to see? All things being equal, with Beatty/Boothe/Baas/Snee/Diehl we are fielding essentially the same line, too which I'd say from a scale of 1-10 would be ~3.5.

                    Of course average would be a 5-6. Good would be 7-8, and then the rest being stud.

                    Those are just my numbers though. If you think our line was lower, or better, that's fine.
                    My body was sculpted to the proportions of Michelangelo's David.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by gmen0820 View Post
                      That's pretty vague though, how much improvement would you like to see? All things being equal, with Beatty/Boothe/Baas/Snee/Diehl we are fielding essentially the same line, too which I'd say from a scale of 1-10 would be ~3.5.

                      Of course average would be a 5-6. Good would be 7-8, and then the rest being stud.

                      Those are just my numbers though. If you think our line was lower, or better, that's fine.
                      Yeah, I'd say our line right now is around a 4 or so, or more specifically, LT: 7
                      LG:4.5-5
                      C:3
                      RG: 4
                      RT: If Diehl is starting, 2, if not it's a complete ?

                      That averages out to be 4.2. There is the possibility that Snee may return a little closer to his old self, which even with Diehl starting could bring our line up to about a 5. However, Boothe is only on a 1 year deal and Snee's '14 is voidable. We definitely need to think about replacements at L/RG and potentially RT, saying Brewer can't step up to the plate. We're pot committed on Baas for the time being, so our only hope there is that he can get better when he's healthy.

                      To answer your question, I'd like to see our line to be around a 6 or so.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Drez View Post
                        Yeah, I'd say our line right now is around a 4 or so, or more specifically, LT: 7
                        LG:4.5-5
                        C:3
                        RG: 4
                        RT: If Diehl is starting, 2, if not it's a complete ?

                        That averages out to be 4.2. There is the possibility that Snee may return a little closer to his old self, which even with Diehl starting could bring our line up to about a 5. However, Boothe is only on a 1 year deal and Snee's '14 is voidable. We definitely need to think about replacements at L/RG and potentially RT, saying Brewer can't step up to the plate. We're pot committed on Baas for the time being, so our only hope there is that he can get better when he's healthy.

                        To answer your question, I'd like to see our line to be around a 6 or so.
                        Then, just by this numerical system, our OL would have to collectively improve by ten points. In order for that to efficiently happen, we'd have to either drastically improve our RT, or significantly improve two positions.

                        And that's only to get it to average/good.

                        I think the expectation/resource ratio is being drastically underestimated. Of course, this is only an abstract demonstration (and probably a poorly constructed one, at that), but the situation is a catch-22. We can devote our first round pick to an OL, in hopes of making it average, but then we still concede that it's Eli whose in charge of masking an average line, and Cruz and Nicks who need to stay healthy. After all, we can't expect too win because of an average line. We can devote a mid round pick, but that's not gonna do us much this year, and it's hard to say what it'll do for us in the future.

                        I'm all for strengthening a weak unit on our offense, especially when it protects our franchise QB, but I'm not willing to try to kill an ant with a sledgehammer to solve this offense's problems. There's no fixed boundaries for offensive/defensive unit spending, but I still want this team's resources optimized, and our defense needs some fresh talent badly.

                        After this year, Tuck is gone, and I don't know what the plans are with Kiwi. Cullen Jenkins got three years, but that could easily be a one year deal. Rogers is gone, and Austin is a question mark. The future outlook for our DL is equally grim.

                        Again, it's gonna come down to who is on the board, but if OG/OT and an equally rated DE/DT/CB is there, I hope they choose the latter.
                        My body was sculpted to the proportions of Michelangelo's David.

                        Comment


                        • How much can we reasonably expect one player to improve a weak unit? If he's not an all-pro right tackle from day one, I don't think there will be much improvement. If he's not an all-pro left guard day one, then not much at all.

                          Let's just say it is Warmack though, and he is a mauling behemoth from rookie minicamp, if we pair him up with Beatty on the left side, we're really just upgrading our second best lineman. We can put him at right guard, but then we'd have to bench a ten million dollar guard, or make him switch sides for the first time in his career for a rookie; that's not only unlikely, but it's recipe for disaster.
                          My body was sculpted to the proportions of Michelangelo's David.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by gmen0820 View Post
                            Then, just by this numerical system, our OL would have to collectively improve by ten points. In order for that to efficiently happen, we'd have to either drastically improve our RT, or significantly improve two positions.

                            And that's only to get it to average/good.

                            I think the expectation/resource ratio is being drastically underestimated. Of course, this is only an abstract demonstration (and probably a poorly constructed one, at that), but the situation is a catch-22. We can devote our first round pick to an OL, in hopes of making it average, but then we still concede that it's Eli whose in charge of masking an average line, and Cruz and Nicks who need to stay healthy. After all, we can't expect too win because of an average line. We can devote a mid round pick, but that's not gonna do us much this year, and it's hard to say what it'll do for us in the future.

                            I'm all for strengthening a weak unit on our offense, especially when it protects our franchise QB, but I'm not willing to try to kill an ant with a sledgehammer to solve this offense's problems. There's no fixed boundaries for offensive/defensive unit spending, but I still want this team's resources optimized, and our defense needs some fresh talent badly.

                            After this year, Tuck is gone, and I don't know what the plans are with Kiwi. Cullen Jenkins got three years, but that could easily be a one year deal. Rogers is gone, and Austin is a question mark. The future outlook for our DL is equally grim.

                            Again, it's gonna come down to who is on the board, but if OG/OT and an equally rated DE/DT/CB is there, I hope they choose the latter.
                            I see what you're saying, and don't necessarily disagree with it, either. I'd like to see us draft an OL somewhere in the first 3 rounds. The other 2 picks I'd like to see at least one DL and then the best defensive player available (preferably another DL or CB; while we could use improvement in the LB corps, I don't see it as being as important as the front 4 and back 4).

                            Is it strange that I think if we try upgrading our OL in the draft that we choose a LG? My logic being I'd rather have a dominant side of the line than having the talent being spread out in a hodge-podge fashion.

                            All those areas are big enough concerns where I don't think you can real make a big fuss, either way.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by gmen0820 View Post
                              How much can we reasonably expect one player to improve a weak unit? If he's not an all-pro right tackle from day one, I don't think there will be much improvement. If he's not an all-pro left guard day one, then not much at all.

                              Let's just say it is Warmack though, and he is a mauling behemoth from rookie minicamp, if we pair him up with Beatty on the left side, we're really just upgrading our second best lineman. We can put him at right guard, but then we'd have to bench a ten million dollar guard, or make him switch sides for the first time in his career for a rookie; that's not only unlikely, but it's recipe for disaster.
                              Right, we'd be upgrading our LG, but Boothe would likely be an upgrade from Diehl at RT (my thought being, Boothe can play LT, so I assume he can play at RT). So, we'd upgrade our second best lineman, and also our worst. Depending on what Warmack plays at, that could put us up in the 5-6 range.

                              Comment


                              • I anticipate a good-great OL before Beatty's contract is up. It'll require patience, but with Eli, and our skill players, the transition is likely to be progressive.

                                As for the defense: crisis if we don't address it heavily, specifically on the DL. Luckily, we have a cornerstone/blue-chip in JPP.
                                My body was sculpted to the proportions of Michelangelo's David.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X