Draft guys that can score, or keep the other team from scoring.

 

Every single solitary position on all three aspects of gameplay are there for that exact goal. You might as well say "draft football players"

 

Good read, interesting take. Scoring points is always good. Our D was good enough to keep us in games last year, bar the one blowout. Albeit, and already beat to death, I wanted nothing better than to choke the living **** out of our secondary in the Indy game.

Hopefully with some new toys on O, and a relatively good draft, we should be able to at least hang tough with NE this year and should be able to get in with a WC.

 

thats why we need playmakers on offense, tavon austin, tyler eiffert, bailey, swope...guys who make plays, not players who won't touch the ball

 

That other stuff doesn't count because it is harder to pay attention to and boring

 

A guard? A Punter? A Long Snapper?

Look, I know what you are trying to say, but don't be so obtuse. There are specific roles on offense that puts points on the board. There are roles on Defense who's primare purpose is to stop it.

 

Teams that score a lot of points and make the playoffs usually have great QB play. If Tannehill steps his game up, particularly in the clutch, Miami will make a push for the playoffs.

 

Yes, their job is to score points or stop players from scoring points. A guard's job is to help people score. A punter is to prevent people from scoring. A long snapper does both.
A positive performance at their jobs aids their specific positions, and a negative performance hinders.

You aren't looking or thinking hard enough if you don't think blocking has a significant impact on a teams offense and ability to score. It not being obvious if you're just following the ball does not mean it isn't there or important.

 

Teams like the Giants, Bears, and Packers have proven that strong skill position corps and defenses that can either disrupt offenses or force turnovers can make up, to an extent, for weak positions such as the O-Line. The Bears have shown, though, that there is a minimum competency that has to be displayed by those positions in order to win consistently.

 

Green Bay is one of the biggest drafters of OL out there. I believe someone posted how they have taken at least one tackle every draft for like 10 years. Sometimes 2 tackles.

 

no its not boring and can't be ignored but i hope not with an early pick


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

Right, because Mike Pouncey never had a hand in making Reggie Bush look better than he ever did as a RB.

 

No, they didn't prove anything as much as the Patriots, 49ers, etc. on prove the opposite. Judging based on a handful of teams is really silly.

Also, you can pretty much use any element to make up for any other element. Including quarterbacking and coaching.

 

Really? Seemed like Green Bay's offensive line took a step backwards last year and the result was Rodgers getting knocked around a lot more - final result predictable loss in the playoffs.
Baltimore had one of the best pass blocking lines in league last year....result = Flacco having all day to throw TDs in the playoffs.
and the Bears haven't shown diddly squat. They have shown the ability to lose in the playoffs every year because they can't keep their QB upright. Now, the caveat is that some of that was Martz's fault in previous years.

 

Larry Fitzgerald's performance this year should be a pretty crystal clear cautionary tale for this kind of thing. ~*Play Makers*~ are pretty easily damaged by of protection. Larry Fitzgerald has a legitimate argument for best wide receiver in the league and his production was horrifying this year.

 

excellent

 

They draft linemen who really aren't all that good.

 

Yes, all players try to either help scoring or prevent it. But there are absolutely players where their talent level has a higher correlation with scoring than others. That is to say, If you have a phenomenal Left Guard, best in the league, but your QB sucks balls, your team isn't going to score as many points as a team with a phenomenal QB and a mediocre to poor left guard. That's common sense. That's proven by history. It's proven by statistics. If you're trying to argue against that, as someone already suggested, you're being obtuse.

 

Quarterback is not comparable with other positions on the field. But in terms of other skill positions?

People basically favor the stuff that is obvious and exciting over the stuff that is subtle but no less important. A guard that can single-handedly open a hole against whomever you put him against is not less valuable than a runningback capable of making the same run play success with poor blocking, but they never get regarded on equal ground.

 

Green Bay was knocked of the playoffs by a more complete team who had an offense that steamrolled GBs defense all game long. Better protection for Rodgers would not have changed the result. Flacco was a blown coverage away from bowing out in the divisional round. In the AFCCG Flacco's defense kept him afloat for the bulk of the day, against one of the best offenses in the game, long enough for him to put together a few scoring drives after NE lost their best defensive back (and best receiver) to injury. He came within a few yards of being the QB he blew a historically large lead to lose (choke, lol) in the Super Bowl.

Would you be talking about Flacco's great protection if it was Hartline running under his Hail Mary, and not Jacoby Jones?

 

You're a GM. You have the choice between the best WR in the game or the best guard in the game. Your current players at those positions are of equal talent. Both average talents when compared to the rest of the league. Do you think there's a GM in the league who chooses guard in this era of the NFL?

They take the WR. Not because the WR is flashier. But because the top WR can do more things to help his team score than the top guard when compared to their average counterpart. The difference in production between an average guard and the best guard is negligible when compared to the difference between an average WR and the best.

 

I think the argument is being positioned incorrectly by both sides.

The argument shouldn't be about a great player vs a horrible player at position X, but instead, should be about a great player vs an average player at position X.

 

You mean exactly how I stated it in the post above yours?

 

I didn't read your last post. I started my post, had a few phone calls come up then completed my post later, you made your post in between that time.