Are you paying attention to what is happening in the playoffs?

[McKDaddy]

Just some quick observations that might influence thoughts on who to pay & how much, how to construct a team & what the results tell us about league trends.

1. Have any high profile pass rushers significantly impacted the games? Mack, Bosa, Watt? Or has it been solid D lines across the board that create sacks & other impactful plays for one another like the Rams did last night in creating 9 sacks & suffocating a 14 win team. (Our former draft pick Neville Gallimore had 1.5.)
2. Running backs are being more impactful than WR's. Barkley (1st), Henry (2nd), Mixon (2nd), Cook (2nd), Williams (5th). Keeping their team balanced & dictating to the defenses.
3. O lines are the achilles heel for otherwise talented teams. Doesn't matter how good your QB, RB, or receiving threats are if the defenses can cause disruption, especially if they can do so without bring extra pressure.
4. Mobile QB's make the game easier. If they are viable passers, it's a cheat code.
5. If you don't have a mobile QB, you better have a well balanced offense & your QB better be able to shred defenses with good decisions & accurate passes. Think Rams & Lions.
6. At the highest levels of competition, your coaching staff has to be on point and willing to take some chances when things are dicey.

 

[ApolytonGP]

1. Agreed. Defense is a team game. Even more than offense. (Except at corner.) Of course having ability helps. But you can do a lot with people following assignments. And lose a lot with the converse. In addition, while pass defense (rush or coverage) are important, because the NFL rules have become so favorable to passing, it is still important to stop the run also, especially in winter football. Just looking at sacks only doesn't tell you how good DEs are (or especially how good DTs are).

2. Yes and no. I think the rules still favor passing. And if you look at money spent, it seems pass catchers are valued more. So that is the market saying something. Also, runners can drop off a cliff fast because of the pounding they take. The rookie contract set wages are probably the most unfair to halfbacks. Meaning in general, teams are best taking a strategy of drafting halfbacks, not signing them in FA. Yes, SB and DH have justified their contracts. So it's not a 100% strategy. But there's just way more options in the draft than in FA. So sure, look at both. But draft is more likely the choice. For a cap constrained team (cowboys?), this might even be more important.

3. Disagree. Fans (of every team) seem to expect talent everywhere. But that's impossible. If you invest a lot of $/picks into QB, you have to expect the guy to be able to make a more marginal line and pass catchers look good. I remember all the Sam Howell truthers blaming his performance on the line. But magically it got better, with an upgrade at QB.

4. Yes and no. I mean sure. But this has been true since the 70s or even before. It's just not a given that they will be decent passers also. Passing is hard (progressions, decisions, accuracy). The college game has vast amounts of running QBs, but few are also decent passers in addition. Also, things can get tricky if a mobile QB gets behind in a game and the defense no longer needs to respect his legs. Or if he has a minor injury affecting his running.

5. Um, yeah, but so? (This didn't seem as interesting an assertion to discuss.)

6. Agreed. The Lions and Skins are going for 4th down way more than the norm (but still not as much as analytics would counsel). There's also a lot of room still for improvement by many teams in terms of time management. Mostly on the coaches, but also the QBs or even the rest of the offense. My understanding is that some teams (e.g. Washington) are spending lots of time on 2 minute or 4 minute drill in practice. But I would say this could/should still be increased even more, both in time and in intensity. And yes, I realize there is a fixed amount of time for practice, so yes this is going to reduce the time for more complicated game plan installs or for drilling on regular time performance.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

 

[McKDaddy]

3. Disagree.

Teams like the Chargers & Vikings got destroyed though because the Oline's either weren't good enough or healthy enough to let the QB, RB & WR talent matter.

5. Um, yeah, but so?

Not everyone can have a dual threat QB. Just wanted to say other QB's can get you there but you'll have to do more to construct the team around them. Figured I had better address both.

2. Yes and no.

I think you are going to see a rebound of RB demand & compensation (not back to their heyday but valued again) & a softening of the WR pay scale.

Thanks for the comments!!

 

[Califan007]

3. Disagree. Fans (of every team) seem to expect talent everywhere. But that's impossible. If you invest a lot of $/picks into QB, you have to expect the guy to be able to make a more marginal line and pass catchers look good. I remember all the Sam Howell truthers blaming his performance on the line. But magically it got better, with an upgrade at QB.

Disagree with your disagree lol...

Your conclusion only makes sense if the only thing that changed from last year is the QB. The Commanders' OLine has three new starters, new player depth, and a new OLine coach. The idea that none of that matters and that the improvement is only due to a change at QB isn't logical.

 

[ApolytonGP]

Disagree with your disagree lol...

Your conclusion only makes sense if the only thing that changed from last year is the QB. The Commanders' OLine has three new starters, new player depth, and a new OLine coach. The idea that none of that matters and that the improvement is only due to a change at QB isn't logical.

Yeah, but everyone thought we were getting scrubs (other than maybe Badass). There was a huge amount of "didn't do enough", "didn't do much" criticisms coming from the typical forum crowds and Washington radio hosts.

Howell was a sack magnet in college...and in the NFL. Truthers thought Howell was a starting quality QB and made all kinds of excuses for him. I remember them even going after F1 Terry!

The free market (other team's trading, and I'm sure we called around, when we put him on the auction block) said he was a backup with some starting experience. I.e. similar to Heinicke. If someone valued Howell as a starter, he'd be starting. Way too much shade thrown on the O-line by the Howell truthers and the "fix da O-line" groupthinkers.

 

[ApolytonGP]

Yeah, but everyone thought we were getting scrubs (other than maybe Badass). There was a huge amount of "didn't do enough", "didn't do much" criticisms coming from the typical forum crowds and Washington radio hosts.

Howell was a sack magnet in college...and in the NFL. Truthers thought Howell was a starting quality QB and made all kinds of excuses for him. I remember them even going after F1 Terry!

The free market (other team's trading, and I'm sure we called around, when we put him on the auction block) said he was a backup with some starting experience. I.e. similar to Heinicke. If someone valued Howell as a starter, he'd be starting. Way too much shade thrown on the O-line by the Howell truthers and the "fix da O-line" groupthinkers.

Also the part about the new coach is a little rich. Remember how the typical fans were evaluating that O-line coach before the season? It sure wasn't as a new Bill Callahan. It was Giants refuse.

Bottom line is regardless of the 2023/2024 Skins O-line quality, the fundamental point remains that you can't invest inordinately on everything. If you spend a lot (cap money or draft picks) on QB, than something else on the offense needs to be slighted. (Assuming you keep ~ 50/50 investment for offense and defense, which you should per PFF, as units they have equal impact on likelihood to win.)

Somehow Pat Mahomes managed/manages to elevate his O-line. It's not like the guys we (showing my colors) got from the (other politically incorrect Indian team) were great intrinsic players, away from him.

P.s. I still remember some of the RG3 apologists saying we needed to get him more weapons and a better line. Sorry...when you represent an investment of 3 #1s, you need to elevate lower quality players. Oh...well at least we got him a bookend offensive tackle, who turned out to be a garrrrrd (TM Jay Gruden).

 

[cowboyec]

not really.
my cowboys aren't in it so....

 

[kskboys]

1. Agreed. Defense is a team game. Even more than offense. (Except at corner.) Of course having ability helps. But you can do a lot with people following assignments. And lose a lot with the converse. In addition, while pass defense (rush or coverage) are important, because the NFL rules have become so favorable to passing, it is still important to stop the run also, especially in winter football. Just looking at sacks only doesn't tell you how good DEs are (or especially how good DTs are).

2. Yes and no. I think the rules still favor passing. And if you look at money spent, it seems pass catchers are valued more. So that is the market saying something. Also, runners can drop off a cliff fast because of the pounding they take. The rookie contract set wages are probably the most unfair to halfbacks. Meaning in general, teams are best taking a strategy of drafting halfbacks, not signing them in FA. Yes, SB and DH have justified their contracts. So it's not a 100% strategy. But there's just way more options in the draft than in FA. So sure, look at both. But draft is more likely the choice. For a cap constrained team (cowboys?), this might even be more important.

3. Disagree. Fans (of every team) seem to expect talent everywhere. But that's impossible. If you invest a lot of $/picks into QB, you have to expect the guy to be able to make a more marginal line and pass catchers look good. I remember all the Sam Howell truthers blaming his performance on the line. But magically it got better, with an upgrade at QB.

4. Yes and no. I mean sure. But this has been true since the 70s or even before. It's just not a given that they will be decent passers also. Passing is hard (progressions, decisions, accuracy). The college game has vast amounts of running QBs, but few are also decent passers in addition. Also, things can get tricky if a mobile QB gets behind in a game and the defense no longer needs to respect his legs. Or if he has a minor injury affecting his running.

5. Um, yeah, but so? (This didn't seem as interesting an assertion to discuss.)

6. Agreed. The Lions and Skins are going for 4th down way more than the norm (but still not as much as analytics would counsel). There's also a lot of room still for improvement by many teams in terms of time management. Mostly on the coaches, but also the QBs or even the rest of the offense. My understanding is that some teams (e.g. Washington) are spending lots of time on 2 minute or 4 minute drill in practice. But I would say this could/should still be increased even more, both in time and in intensity. And yes, I realize there is a fixed amount of time for practice, so yes this is going to reduce the time for more complicated game plan installs or for drilling on regular time performance.

2. That was the old way of thinking. It's in the process of changing. The smart teams aren't paying WRs huge.