Not sure if serious.

 

Sigh.

I hate the ****ing media sometimes.

 

Eh, some of the same things I've said about Big Jake so it comes as no surprise.

I do think the idea that he won't fit into Philbin's system is absurd, the real problem is his cap number for his position imo.

Hard to sink that much of your cap into the OL.

 

No, we're not having this conversation. It's just too ridiculous.

 

Maybe they should look at like a Michigan game from when Long was there

 

....Good night.

 

Again with this crap?

 

Jake Long will be a good player in any system.

But Joe Thomas got a 8 year, $92 million contract.

Considering that Green Bay offense got along just fine with Marshall effing Newhouse at left tackle, the question to ask is, does Jake Long fit the system so well that he's worth $11 or $12 million a year long term with a **** ton of guaranteed?

I think it's a fair question, however Jeff Ireland will re-sign Jake Long no matter what. He has to. Letting Jake go would be a de facto admission that he made the wrong call on Jake Long over Matt Ryan.

 

How do you get Leaner than Jake Long?

 

Did this guy read some of those "Jake Long can't play LT threads" on here?

 

Is Sessler still in junior high? He begins his argument saying that Long isn't the type of player that fits into Philbin's scheme and then he says that the problem is cap space. Very poor job at writing.

 

My head explodes when comes to financial matters, so I won't even get into that; however, Football 101 dictates that games are won and lost at the line of scrimmage, so isn't that where you should invest?

 

That would be too easy, and would remove their ability to have a 'story', because right now thats what it is - a story. The story is mostly make believe but what the hell, who likes dealing with reality.

If we talk about cap numbers etc, fine thats a different story, but playing in this system? To me thats not a question.

 

Return on investment, look at it this way:

There are 5 Olinemen, the reason why Long was thought to be valuable is "he protects the Qb's blindside". Which is true, however the way defenses work now with blitzes by defensive backs and moving your best passrusher around the formation, that value is reduced. Sort of like having Revis cover Bess, his high salary is effectively negated by forcing him to cover a player who is not likely to hurt the defense with a big play in the first place.

This concept was lost on parcells in 08. Ireland's approach has been to sink high value resources into the OL, however, what the best teams tend to do is use those same resources on players who create Td's and under pay for OLinemen. A change in how the game is played from Parcells halycon days and really from KC's powerhouse days in the 90's and early 00's when Ireland was in KC.

Think of the salary cap as having 122 pennies, teams like the Saints and Giants have most of their pennies used on playmakers, the Dolphins have most of ours dedicated to..offensive linemen, the results really could not by more clear. To keep Long means we continue with that strategy.

 

Long is one of the top offensive linemen in the NFL. The only way I see him not remaining a Dolphin after the 2012 season is if he has another injury riddled season this year. If he is able to overcome the injuries of the past two seasons and return to the player he was prior to these injuries, I see him playing LT for the Dolphins for years to come.

The view that he doesn't fit the new offensive scheme the Dolphins will run is just a bunch of BS , as far as I am concerned.

 

There is one part of the potential "getting rid of Jake Long" idea that I think has some rationality to it. And that is what you're hinting at I think. On his best day, Jake Long can only negate 1 player on defense. He does play a critical position and he plays it very well. But if you can find someone who can adequately play the position to the point there the impact on production / sacks allowed is marginal for a fraction of the cost, at some point it starts to make sense. Easier said than done though. So I think you can absolutely have a rational dollars and cents discussion about Jake Long. But I think when the media tries to paint Jake Long as being a player on a "hot seat" and having something to prove in this league is where it gets ridiculous.

It's Martin that has something to prove if this idea has any merit. Not Jake Long.

 

:lol:

The only thing I agree with is the contract. Its going to have to be huge probably. Then the only other thing I'd question with Jake is his health. Other than that, he can play anywhere. Hell, if I remember correctly, Michigan ran alot of zone blocking when he was there, and he handled it well enough to be the #1 overall pick. I wouldn't be to worried.

 

There's no special scheme secrets that the Packers use to devalue tackles or make them any less important than any other team. Marshall Newhouse was one of the worst left tackles in the NFL last season, and the only reason the Packers didn't suffer for it is that Aaron Rodgers is very good.

 

Giants left tackle was a pressure allowing machine as well.

And that would also mean a Qb can make the Oline better, but the OL does not make the Qb better.

 

Pads, don't completely disagree and having Martin is a bargaining chip for Ireland as he works on a deal with Long, but in this new age of rookie salary cap you are going to have that happen at various positions all the time. Now, Jake is under the old system and has cost more, but if Martin supplants Long next year [if they don't intend to re-sign him] and becomes an all pro LT, come 2015 he'll be up against the same issue with Martin, won't he ? I mean a premier LT is like a premier QB or pass rushing DE or elite CB...you have to keep those guys, even tho you are going to pay thru the nose for them... I don't buy that exchanging a lesser player for Long is a good move, unless Long wants to move on and is asking for QB money not LT money...

And I agree that the initial premise of Long not fitting in this scheme is ludicrous...

 

Thing is, what happens when that left tackle, or your all pro Te Egnew, both are up for new deals?

Recall the saints let their all pro left tackle walk, kept Colston, and kept winning.

 

You need to pay the playmakers. Jake may be on the hotseat because of injuries and money, but not playing in a different scheme. And never underestimate the money part.

 

I'm not saying you can't survive without a high quality LT. You can win a Super Bowl without good players at any specific position- Including quarterback.

I don't see how you can at all defend the idea a left tackle can't make a quarterback better.

 

Said left tackle also wasn't very good at that point.

 

Joe Thomas and Jake Long, both top 5 picks, neither have more than one winning season, they simply are not difference makers.

Defenses have changed to much to think a left tackle is simply going to negate pressure on the Qb, that is 1980's thinking. So when you sink that much of your cap and resources into the position you are actually engaging in a futile strategy. A Cb on a blitz is far more likely to cause more problems then the pass rusher the left tackle is blocking.

 

A left tackle can protect a QB better, but he can't help a mediocre QB be anything more than a mediocre QB, IMHO.

 

When you blitz a cb you also give the offense the opportunity for a big play.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2

 

As it is with any blitz, however this the way the NFL is going.

 

This is evidence of...What? That Left Tackle isn't enough to single-handedly win games? Which fails to separate them from virtually everyone in the league.

Jake Long pretty much negates whatever pressure he's responsible for. And what you're suggesting applies to any position in a "unit" with 1v1 match-ups. That pretty much devalues every position besides quarterback as negligible. No player can single-handedly "solve" an aspect of game play besides sometimes quarterbacks.

 

This is why in today's game, OL is a waste of resources IMO....the game is about the skill players....sure you need guys to block, and run schemes....however I would rather give 30M guaranteed to another position....

As far as Long "fitting in" thats crap, the guy has earned his respect, and the right not to be questioned about fitting in.....

 

You can justify ANY position being unimportant through that logic. Is pass rush unimportant, because by extension protecting against it is? The Patriots have been successful with an awful pass defense, is that now unimportant?

 

I have to laugh at the thought of Egnew being a future all pro TE. The history of Missouri TE"s are that they are great in college and are flops in the NFL. I think Egnew will be a very average TE at the NFL level and I think the Dolphins would have been better off at that the TE position if they had offered a seventh round draft pick to the Bucs for Kellen Winslow Jr.

 

LT's are not difference makers, seems clear enough.

Well gosh, then if he does not score td's, why sink that many resources into the position instead of using them on guys who do create plays?

 

Exactly, this seems clear the problem is the "win in the trenches" stuff is so ingrained some cannot see what a bad proposition it is.

 

I know that's your opinion, but what you're claiming doesn't actually support it.

Because that's a very fantasy football/Madden point of view that isn't actually in practice in the NFL?

The benefit of good pass blocking is pretty evidence. You can put more players into routes, run deeper routes, players have more time to get open, etc. and so on. It not being directly measurable does not make it unimportant.

 

Of course.

Hmm, and yet Giants, Saints, both had mediocre to poor tackles, ditto colts and steelers and all are among the most successful teams over the last 5 yrs.

They have invested heavily in td scoring positions

 

as much as i like jake, 12 million a year is a lot for someone who is not touching the football

 

You can do this for literally every single position or area of play on the field including quarterback.