A philosophical roster-building and game play thought...and some of this is before my time, so I'm sure many will disagree...

70's, 80's, 90's...the blueprint was to build around the lines out.  A RB could be a franchise player...certainly a bigger, more valuable part of your offense and game plan than your WRs.  An elite defense generally comes out on top of an elite offense.  You can win a Super Bowl on the shoulders of elite defense with passable offense.  

Notable events: The SF dynasty introduces the concept that an offense can be built more around a QB/WR connection than QB/RB.

1999 & 2000's : The Rams offense changes everything.  The beginning of offense wins championships...the real new era QB...a master at progressions with a quick accurate release putting up huge numbers to waves of separation WRs.  This wasn't a relentless march towards offense, as defense-led teams in the Buccaneers, Ravens, and Patriots all had SB titles on the horizon.  But it was the beginning.  Then the no-contact rules were enforced more aggressively.  

2010's: Widespread adoption.  Everyone wants their burner WRs, deep threats, huge pass/run ratios.  FB disappears as a position.  RB's devalued both on the field and off it (injuries, longevity).  Running game in general devalued.  Top defenses, aside from lucky "any given Sundays" generally can't stand up to top offenses.  You win a Super Bowl on the shoulders of elite offense with passable defense.

Late 2010's - now: Player safety initiative.  Big hitters in the secondary are a liability.  QB's overprotected.   Top DB's are basically just the best bull riders...whoever can hang on the longest before getting burnt.  KOR/PR gradually phased out as an impactful part of the game.  Scoring continues to escalate out of control.  

 

The NFL is due for a shift in the blueprint to win.  With only 1-3 truly unique pass rushing threats in the NFL and the extreme degrees of QB protection, I wonder if the lines (conventionally THE place to start building) will be the next aspect of the game to be rendered far less impactful and far more difficult to claw far beyond the mean...rendering them less variable.  The more becomes pitch and catch, the more all that matters is the picther/QB and catcher/receiver.

 

 

^^^  Yup.  Arena Football outdoors on a bigger field, basically. 

 

35 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

A philosophical roster-building and game play thought...and some of this is before my time, so I'm sure many will disagree...

70's, 80's, 90's...the blueprint was to build around the lines out.  A RB could be a franchise player...certainly a bigger, more valuable part of your offense and game plan than your WRs.  An elite defense generally comes out on top of an elite offense.  You can win a Super Bowl on the shoulders of elite defense with passable offense.  

Notable events: The SF dynasty introduces the concept that an offense can be built more around a QB/WR connection than QB/RB.

1999 & 2000's : The Rams offense changes everything.  The beginning of offense wins championships...the real new era QB...a master at progressions with a quick accurate release putting up huge numbers to waves of separation WRs.  This wasn't a relentless march towards offense, as defense-led teams in the Buccaneers, Ravens, and Patriots all had SB titles on the horizon.  But it was the beginning.  Then the no-contact rules were enforced more aggressively.  

2010's: Widespread adoption.  Everyone wants their burner WRs, deep threats, huge pass/run ratios.  FB disappears as a position.  RB's devalued both on the field and off it (injuries, longevity).  Running game in general devalued.  Top defenses, aside from lucky "any given Sundays" generally can't stand up to top offenses.  You win a Super Bowl on the shoulders of elite offense with passable defense.

Late 2010's - now: Player safety initiative.  Big hitters in the secondary are a liability.  QB's overprotected.   Top DB's are basically just the best bull riders...whoever can hang on the longest before getting burnt.  KOR/PR gradually phased out as an impactful part of the game.  Scoring continues to escalate out of control.  

 

The NFL is due for a shift in the blueprint to win.  With only 1-3 truly unique pass rushing threats in the NFL and the extreme degrees of QB protection, I wonder if the lines (conventionally THE place to start building) will be the next aspect of the game to be rendered far less impactful and far more difficult to claw far beyond the mean...rendering them less variable.  The more becomes pitch and catch, the more all that matters is the picther/QB and catcher/receiver.

 

 

I think QB is the position getting less impactful, and by that I mean it feels like it’s trending where there are less all time elite players at the position vs very good players. 10 or so years ago you have Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers in their prime who are all likely fist ballot HoF’ers. Followed by guys with strong careers like Ryan, other Manning, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Stafford etc who all may make it into the HOF. Right now it doesn’t seem like there are many new elites besides Mahomes. There are promising players like Herbert and Allen, but it feels like the elite franchise QB who will be around for 10+ years is more of a unicorn now. I think winning with a good QB is far easier than it was in the past when you needed a great one. 

16 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I think QB is the position getting less impactful, and by that I mean it feels like it’s trending where there are less all time elite players at the position vs very good players. 10 or so years ago you have Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers in their prime who are all likely fist ballot HoF’ers. Followed by guys with strong careers like Ryan, other Manning, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Stafford etc who all may make it into the HOF. Right now it doesn’t seem like there are many new elites besides Mahomes. There are promising players like Herbert and Allen, but it feels like the elite franchise QB who will be around for 10+ years is more of a unicorn now. I think winning with a good QB is far easier than it was in the past when you needed a great one. 

I don’t know about this. Let’s just say I think they average nfl starting QB is definitely better than it was 10 years ago. 

5 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

A philosophical roster-building and game play thought...and some of this is before my time, so I'm sure many will disagree...

70's, 80's, 90's...the blueprint was to build around the lines out.  A RB could be a franchise player...certainly a bigger, more valuable part of your offense and game plan than your WRs.  An elite defense generally comes out on top of an elite offense.  You can win a Super Bowl on the shoulders of elite defense with passable offense.  

Notable events: The SF dynasty introduces the concept that an offense can be built more around a QB/WR connection than QB/RB.

1999 & 2000's : The Rams offense changes everything.  The beginning of offense wins championships...the real new era QB...a master at progressions with a quick accurate release putting up huge numbers to waves of separation WRs.  This wasn't a relentless march towards offense, as defense-led teams in the Buccaneers, Ravens, and Patriots all had SB titles on the horizon.  But it was the beginning.  Then the no-contact rules were enforced more aggressively.  

2010's: Widespread adoption.  Everyone wants their burner WRs, deep threats, huge pass/run ratios.  FB disappears as a position.  RB's devalued both on the field and off it (injuries, longevity).  Running game in general devalued.  Top defenses, aside from lucky "any given Sundays" generally can't stand up to top offenses.  You win a Super Bowl on the shoulders of elite offense with passable defense.

Late 2010's - now: Player safety initiative.  Big hitters in the secondary are a liability.  QB's overprotected.   Top DB's are basically just the best bull riders...whoever can hang on the longest before getting burnt.  KOR/PR gradually phased out as an impactful part of the game.  Scoring continues to escalate out of control.  

 

The NFL is due for a shift in the blueprint to win.  With only 1-3 truly unique pass rushing threats in the NFL and the extreme degrees of QB protection, I wonder if the lines (conventionally THE place to start building) will be the next aspect of the game to be rendered far less impactful and far more difficult to claw far beyond the mean...rendering them less variable.  The more becomes pitch and catch, the more all that matters is the picther/QB and catcher/receiver.

 

 

I'd add Favre to the historical progression. Athletic, big arm, and willing to take risks. He was in that reorganization period during the 90's, but he was the first to transition the WCO pass first approach from pure ball control to more of a vertical threat. If you think back to the 90's, the popular opinion was that arm strength was overrated because everyone was looking at the 9ers. Then you had this brash "gunslinger" chucking the ball down field with reckless abandon, and more often than not it turned into a big play. There used to be a saying that only 3 things can happen when you pass the ball and 2 of them are bad. Favre was the first to show that 2 of them are good: completion and PI.

As far as the next evolution of the game, I don't think the lines can be devalued. It's really the only way to stop anything on defense and it's the only way to keep your QB out of the training room on offense. What I think is going to be the next shift is the emphasis on turnovers on the defensive side of the ball. If defenses can't stop anyone, then the way to create value is getting the ball back for your offense.

I think this is going to start with high risk/reward gambling schemes. Play calls designed to jump routes. Lots of exotic blitz packages looking for strip sacks and tipped passes to intercept.. Then you'll start looking at personnel. DBs will have a lot more emphasis put on ball skills and a lot less on coverage skills. More zone, less man to man -- let them sit back and try to jump routes. They can't run in man to man anyway, so why bother? LBs are going to be devalued even more, so why bother? You're only playing two of them most of the time and they just don't do much. Maybe they start looking like Dawkins -- 210 pounds, hard hitting, but able to cover.

Everyone knows that turnovers generally decide football games, but no defensive coordinator has gone full send with an emphasis on turnovers. No one wants to risk big plays, because it looks bad. But eventually some bright young coaches are going to get together, make the commitment, and bring in the right players to execute it. The defense is going to look bad. You're going to give up tons of big plays. But I think it's going to be a situation where you have an incremental increase in big plays against you with an outsized number of turnovers forced against the other team. I've seen some models that netting +1 turnover is worth on average almost a 9 point swing in a game. If things keep moving towards the offense, someone will eventually throw caution to the wind and design the entire defense around maximizing turnovers. 

2 minutes ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

I don’t know about this. Let’s just say I think they average nfl starting QB is definitely better than it was 10 years ago. 

That’s kinda what I’m saying. The rule changes are making the average QB now better than in the past. So you don’t need the elite guy now to be a contending team like most teams in the past needed. If the there are more better average guys now it makes the position less impactful. 

3 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

That’s kinda what I’m saying. The rule changes are making the average QB now better than in the past. So you don’t need the elite guy now to be a contending team like most teams in the past needed. If the there are more better average guys now it makes the position less impactful. 

Possibly but I believe the QBs are much better. I also feel like coaches are doing a better job of adapting their philosophy/scheme to fit the strengths of the QB. 

2 minutes ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

I don’t know about this. Let’s just say I think they average nfl starting QB is definitely better than it was 10 years ago. 

I think that's sort of his point.

The difference between the best QB in the NFL, the average starting QB, and a replacement level QB has shrunk substantially. It used to be that if you had the 15th-20th best QB in the NFL starting for you, you were going to have a BAD offense and the only way to win was with defense. These days if you have the 15th best QB you can put up a ton of yards and points as long as you have good talent around him.

So could we get to a place where giving a second contract to a non-elite QB makes no sense? If all the rules are stacked in favor of the offense, and the QB position is the deepest it's ever been, and rookie QBs routinely come in and produce year one, What's the opportunity cost of giving a mega contract to a QB versus what those resources could put around a rookie? Do you want to hand $200M to a good but not great starter? College QBs are so much better than they used to be, and they're athletic to boot. We are seeing this with Hurts. Second round pick and he's at the very least serviceable. You have lots of small school guys getting drafted in the first round and doing well. On the veteran front it's relatively easy to get a backup who can win you some games. You can find a guy like Foles as a backup and win a SB. 

15 minutes ago, TEW said:

I'd add Favre to the historical progression. Athletic, big arm, and willing to take risks. He was in that reorganization period during the 90's, but he was the first to transition the WCO pass first approach from pure ball control to more of a vertical threat. If you think back to the 90's, the popular opinion was that arm strength was overrated because everyone was looking at the 9ers. Then you had this brash "gunslinger" chucking the ball down field with reckless abandon, and more often than not it turned into a big play. There used to be a saying that only 3 things can happen when you pass the ball and 2 of them are bad. Favre was the first to show that 2 of them are good: completion and PI.

As far as the next evolution of the game, I don't think the lines can be devalued. It's really the only way to stop anything on defense and it's the only way to keep your QB out of the training room on offense. What I think is going to be the next shift is the emphasis on turnovers on the defensive side of the ball. If defenses can't stop anyone, then the way to create value is getting the ball back for your offense.

I think this is going to start with high risk/reward gambling schemes. Play calls designed to jump routes. Lots of exotic blitz packages looking for strip sacks and tipped passes to intercept.. Then you'll start looking at personnel. DBs will have a lot more emphasis put on ball skills and a lot less on coverage skills. More zone, less man to man -- let them sit back and try to jump routes. They can't run in man to man anyway, so why bother? LBs are going to be devalued even more, so why bother? You're only playing two of them most of the time and they just don't do much. Maybe they start looking like Dawkins -- 210 pounds, hard hitting, but able to cover.

Everyone knows that turnovers generally decide football games, but no defensive coordinator has gone full send with an emphasis on turnovers. No one wants to risk big plays, because it looks bad. But eventually some bright young coaches are going to get together, make the commitment, and bring in the right players to execute it. The defense is going to look bad. You're going to give up tons of big plays. But I think it's going to be a situation where you have an incremental increase in big plays against you with an outsized number of turnovers forced against the other team. I've seen some models that netting +1 turnover is worth on average almost a 9 point swing in a game. If things keep moving towards the offense, someone will eventually throw caution to the wind and design the entire defense around maximizing turnovers. 

I don't know about that as far as defense goes. It'll just become more and more bend/don't break with 80-90% of your defensive salary cap being put towards the D-Line. IMO anyway. Time will tell. 

One thing I don't get is how more teams don't emphasis more of a power running game. Linebackers are often 220-230lbs now. I believe Trotter back in the day was like 260. Ryan Shazier used to workout at a gym I managed (pre-injury). He had the lower body of a WR. He was listed at 230 but looked more 210-215. 

1 minute ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

I don't know about that as far as defense goes. It'll just become more and more bend/don't break with 80-90% of your defensive salary cap being put towards the D-Line. IMO anyway. Time will tell. 

But bend don't break won't work when everything is designed to make you break. You can't touch the QB, you can't touch WRs, and if a RB lowers his head going through the hole you're going to get a helmet to helmet penalty. Meanwhile the QBs are getting better and better, and the WRs are faster and more athletic than they've ever been. The whole system is designed to break the defense.

It's going to get harder to absorb offensive plays without giving up points. Chip Kelly was right about that. Running more plays than the other team increases your chances of winning. So I say go the complete opposite direction: if offenses want to go for big plays, the defense should too. If nearly every possession is going to end in points, take away the other team's possession. Obviously don't be stupid about things, but I would do the total opposite of bend don't break. I'd be thinking of the defense as an extension of the offense. Either steal the ball back so your offense can score or the other team scores quickly and then your offense gets the ball back. Added bonus: your defense plays fewer snaps and their defense is gassed by the end of the game.

The line of scrimmage will always be a major focus. It's just too hard to have success without it. Look at college teams and how ineffective they can be on offense, against way inferior defenses obviously, because they don't have the talent to block.

The only way I can see the lines being slightly less valued is if the position is so well stocked with talent that it becomes less difficult to acquire those players. Otherwise, you'll live and die on the lines. That won't really change.

1 minute ago, schuy7 said:

The line of scrimmage will always be a major focus. It's just too hard to have success without it. Look at college teams and how ineffective they can be on offense, against way inferior defenses obviously, because they don't have the talent to block.

The only way I can see the lines being slightly less valued is if the position is so well stocked with talent that it becomes less difficult to acquire those players. Otherwise, you'll live and die on the lines. That won't really change.

Yup.

And the problem here is that the genetics required to be a good lineman are extremely rare. 6'4" men are in the 99.9th percentile. That's not accounting for athleticism. That's not accounting for a frame that can carry 250-350 pounds. That's not accounting for the toughness required to play the position. These guys are extremely rare.

OMG, I just saw the news.  Praying for Andy glad he's doing better..   

6 hours ago, Bwestbrook36 said:

Yes this is quite the predicament they have themselves in. I just hope.they know that picking bad players means that they missed out on the good ones. 

Not if they identified a good player who was drafted just before their turn, then their actual pick doesn't matter, they were just unlucky.

6 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

That’s kinda what I’m saying. The rule changes are making the average QB now better than in the past. So you don’t need the elite guy now to be a contending team like most teams in the past needed. If the there are more better average guys now it makes the position less impactful. 

Esp at the prices these top QBs are asking for after their rookie deals. Your best method at this point is draft a QB every few years in the first two days. If one is a star, trade him for kings ransom in his 3rd-4th year to gain more picks. As a safe backup always draft a QB in the mid round each year as well. The true QB Factory method. 

22 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

Esp at the prices these top QBs are asking for after their rookie deals. Your best method at this point is draft a QB every few years in the first two days. If one is a star, trade him for kings ransom in his 3rd-4th year to gain more picks. As a safe backup always draft a QB in the mid round each year as well. The true QB Factory method. 

QBs are going to end up killing teams at this rate. We're going to see it soon in KC and as is, they already don't look like the same team. Granted, I fully expect they'll be in the mix at the end of the season.

Dallass sucks

It looks Big Red was severely dehydrated but for someone his age and size, you never know if there are underlying conditions at play.

Moving onto the Niners, the shot Adams took helmet to helmet that wasn't called was embarrassing. That Zebra team had a poor old game overall.

Still, its Dallas game day.  Their DL is injured and small, so there should be opportunities to run the ball consistently tonight

7 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I think QB is the position getting less impactful, and by that I mean it feels like it’s trending where there are less all time elite players at the position vs very good players. 10 or so years ago you have Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers in their prime who are all likely fist ballot HoF’ers. Followed by guys with strong careers like Ryan, other Manning, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Stafford etc who all may make it into the HOF. Right now it doesn’t seem like there are many new elites besides Mahomes. There are promising players like Herbert and Allen, but it feels like the elite franchise QB who will be around for 10+ years is more of a unicorn now. I think winning with a good QB is far easier than it was in the past when you needed a great one. 

Wilson is up there. But other than Stafford there's no pocket passer right now that I'd say is top 10 that will be around (well, Brady may prove me wrong and be the first QB in the AARP). Guys like Jackson I expect to be good to great for a half dozen years, but that's a different kind of QB relationship ... Closer to what RBs became: you know there is a shorter prime career, I wonder if that won't be built in to contracts.

Allen I think is good. And I like Burrow too.

17 minutes ago, UK Eagle said:

Still, its Dallas game day.  Their DL is injured and small, so there should be opportunities to run the ball consistently tonight

I just hope Mailata rests. Nothing worse in football than when an injured guys plays for weeks, is ineffective, AND injures himself worse. Look at Lane Johnson last year. Instead of having two weeks off to start the year he reinjured himself throughout the entire season.

1 minute ago, SB52 said:

I just hope Mailata rests. Nothing worse in football than when am injured guys plays for weeks, is ineffective, AND injured himself worse. Look at Lane Johnson last year. Instead of having two weeks off to start the year he reinjured himself throughout the entire season.

And Carson Wentz.  Get healthy.  Mailata is listed as Out, I believe, so I don't think we'll see him till he is healthy

1 minute ago, Bacarty2 said:

I'm sure if look back there was a "lull" in elite passers in the league before the next batch game up. 

In 5 years you could have... Burrow, Allen, Herbert, Mahomes, Stafford, Russ, Darnold(I like him a lot and think he fits well with Rhule) 

Stafford is 33. I'm happy to see him get a shot with a good team, but his window is shorter than the other guys.

Wilson is 32 as well. 

Allen, Burrow, & Herbert seem like they have the style of play that can stick around. Mahomes I wonder about, he has sick talent but needs to take care of his body.

QBs generally don't have the luxury of watching at the start of their career anymore.  Decent college QBs get drafted onto crappy teams and have a few seasons with little help to show they are the guy.  Rodgers and Mahomes went to good teams and watched for at least a year.  They are now the two best QBs in the league.

Also, I wouldn't dismiss the importance of the pass rush.  It is forcing teams to go to a quick game, which implicitly limits the big plays.

 

On 9/23/2021 at 3:48 PM, Iggles_Phan said:

That's both a bad player / bad pick.  

I'm not talking about drafting for need... but about having a plan for the player.   They seemed to really have no plan for Goedert.  TE is not a premier position, but they needed to double up on it.  And here we are in Year 4, and he's still the #2 TE.  Give me the Brent Celek/Trey Burton #2 TE over a premium pick every time.   

Goedert wasn't a bad pick at the time, but has become a bad pick as they now have to decide whether or not to pay him at a premium TE price for a guy that they've never actually seen do it for a full season as the lead TE.  Bad roster construction, bad succession planning.   

will agree to disagree, anytime we draft a player who turns out to be a better player than we nortmally pick, yeah, I call that a win, mainly because we draft soo many who are not very good players. So getting any value to me is better than no value.

 

So we will disagree.