FAREWELL to the NFL Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State

[volsmet]

Obviously there is nothing Barber offers that Peterson doesn’t. That move was made for other reasons.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

12 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I really think that many here, while acknowledging how bad the line is, don’t truly grasp how bad the line is.

 

I probably harped on the O line on this thread as much as anyone before the season.  I recall even arguments about it with some defending Christian and disagreeing with me that the Giants O line has jumped a clear peg above ours among other things. 

 

So yeah I get how bad it is.

 

But I disagree with a premise (if that's your premise and maybe it isn't) that Peterson would be just as pedestrian as Barber was last week.  Peterson has a wicked jump cut and can break tackles still at his age as good as almost anyone in the league.  I've several times posted clips of how amazing that dude was as to breaking tackles and making something out of nothing. 

 

I seriously doubt if Barber was playing with Detriot (which had one of the worst run blocking grades last season) they'd be talking about him having the most 10 yard plus runs in the league last Sunday.

 

Don't get me wrong, its early, and as you know i am a huge fan of Gibson who I think showed some flashes.  The main thing about releasing Peterson from what I gathered wasn't that they wanted to do him a solid and have him go to a team where he'd be the lead back otherwise they'd have kept him.  Lions have some talent at RB as is. Peterson wasn't the obvious #1 guy there either. 

 

According to some beat guys, it was that they genuinely thought Barber would be a better back in their scheme than Peterson.   Barber had one of the worst YPAs in the league last year.  Peterson is Peterson.  It's early and things can turn out more than fine.  All I was saying is they might regret the Barber > Peterson drill if Peterson has a typical Peterson year and Barber has a typical Barber season.  Will see.  

[KDawg]

I think Peterson would have been marginally better than Barber. Contact was happening early and from more than one source. AP would have gotten some tough yards Barber didn’t, but would have had a rough game as well, in my opinion.

 

The left side of the line was cataclysmically poor. 

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, volsmet said:

Obviously there is nothing Barber offers that Peterson doesn’t. That move was made for other reasons.

 

 

 

Behind the scene reasons?  The reason that was told to the beat guys behind the scenes (judging by their commentary) centered on Barber having better hands and they want to run this new fangled run-pass catching backfield with a lot of motion.  And Peterson didn't fit that.

 

I get it.  I get it from a McKissic and Love and Gibson point of view.  Barber not so much but will see maybe the dude does really have a great hands.  Like I said its early.  

 

I didn't say they should regret letting Peterson go.  I said if Peterson has a monster season and Barber has a typical Barber season and the run game doesn't take -- they may regret it. 

[bowhunter]

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

I get it.  I get it from a McKissic and Love and Gibson point of view.  Barber not so much but will see maybe the dude does really have a great hands.  Like I said its early.  

 

 

Maybe not to be continued in Dwaynes thread. but Love was a missing part of that equation. Perhaps he is what the world needs more of

[Skinsinparadise]

11 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I think Peterson would have been marginally better than Barber. Contact was happening early and from more than one source. AP would have gotten some tough yards Barber didn’t, but would have had a rough game as well, in my opinion.

 

Don't know.  But Peterson can break off into a big run after he finds some daylight.  Barber hasn't been that kind of dude in his career.   The Lions do not have some monster run blockers.  Peterson is one of the better backs even at his age at making something out of nothing.

 

My problem here is we have a sample with Barber, 4 years is a long time for that position, 3.1 YPC last year.  He hasn't really had a hot career.  But again i'll give him time.  My point isn't that we should regret it today but instead at the end of the seaon if we end up having a shot at the playoffs (which I doubt) and Peterson has a Peterson season and Barber has a typical Barber season, we might end up regretting it, if the run game stalls. 

 

I get your point that Peterson wouldn't be Peterson with this O line.  I agree and disagree.  I agree he wouldn't be the same but I think he is exactly the right back to make something out of nothing, that's somewhat his niche. 

1 minute ago, bowhunter said:

Maybe not to be continued in Dwaynes thread. but Love was a missing part of that equation. Perhaps he is what the world needs more of

 

I love Love, no pun intended but those watching practice said he's not the same explosive back he was in college at least not yet

[Llevron]

Is the line really bad enough that we need to seriously consider a change after game 1 with no preseason? I get that there arnt that many games, but I wonder if thats a bit reactionary. 

 

I ask because I truly dont know. I have seen the clips and they look terrible but I also dont know if its easily fixed or if the Eagles just have some talent up front. 

[skinny21]

2 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Is the line really bad enough that we need to seriously consider a change after game 1 with no preseason? I get that there arnt that many games, but I wonder if thats a bit reactionary. 

 

I ask because I truly dont know. I have seen the clips and they look terrible but I also dont know if its easily fixed or if the Eagles just have some talent up front. 

I would say we don’t know quite how bad the oline is (mainly the left side obviously) since the feedback has been them vs our line and the Eagles - both with a lot of talent.  Don’t think there’s a quick fix.  I do think we could see solid improvement as they gel, get more game experience, and everyone (ie the rest of the offense) gets more comfortable in the system.  Possible we switch guys and see some improvement too.  Of course, Turner hasn’t gotten to see these guys in preseason games to know exactly what he’s dealing with (though he has a sense of it obviously).  Overall though, this looks like a big problem for the foreseeable future, and any improvement we see (from the left side of the oline) likely only moves the needle from terrible to below average/bad.

[MartinC]

1 hour ago, bowhunter said:

Maybe not to be continued in Dwaynes thread. but Love was a missing part of that equation. Perhaps he is what the world needs more of

 

Second half of the season is when we see Love as he gets his legs back under him (literally).

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

Is the line really bad enough that we need to seriously consider a change after game 1 with no preseason? I get that there arnt that many games, but I wonder if thats a bit reactionary. 

 

I ask because I truly dont know. I have seen the clips and they look terrible but I also dont know if its easily fixed or if the Eagles just have some talent up front. 

 

It was bad. Like really bad. 

 

But you only make a change if you think you have better options available that can make it better. Charles has been injured and may still not be 100% and then we have a bunch of guys. Our depth is not great. If the struggles continue we will see Charles at some point but not yet.

 

Arizona have a good D'line as well and Chandler Jones is significantly better as an edge rusher than anyone the Eagles have.

[Going Commando]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

Is the line really bad enough that we need to seriously consider a change after game 1 with no preseason? I get that there arnt that many games, but I wonder if thats a bit reactionary. 

 

I ask because I truly dont know. I have seen the clips and they look terrible but I also dont know if its easily fixed or if the Eagles just have some talent up front. 

 

It's very reactionary.  This is their first real action together and they need time to figure out how to play together.  And the Eagles have one of the best DLs in the NFL.

 

I don't agree with the shade being thrown at Peyton Barber either.  My man got the critical fourth down conversion and scored two touchdowns, including the go ahead one.  We put the ball in his hands with the game on the line and he made the plays for us.  We don't get that win without his tough yards work.

[Going Commando]

16 minutes ago, MartinC said:

Arizona have a good D'line as well and Chandler Jones is significantly better as an edge rusher than anyone the Eagles have.

 

I don't know if I agree with all of this.  That Arizona line looks like a "get right" game for our line to me.  Jones is a stud but Josh Sweat played like a stud on Sunday.  I don't think he's going to shell shock our offense any more than Sweat did.  And because he's the only threat on their line, we can roll protections his way.  The rest of their front is all journeyman and first and second year players.  They might get good in a year or two, but they're not there yet.  And on the other side of the line of scrimmage, their OL is not good.  Certainly not any more talented than ours is.  They've got playmakers for sure, but our front four is so unbelievably good that we can spy Murray and play 6 man coverages and still beat the crap out of that OL.

 

We're going to be alright.  We have a good chance to win this week.

[MartinC]

3 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I don't know if I agree with all of this.  That Arizona line looks like a "get right" game for our line to me.  Jones is a stud but Josh Sweat played like a stud on Sunday.  I don't think he's going to shell shock our offense any more than Sweat did.  And because he's the only threat on their line, we can roll protections his way.  The rest of their front is all journeyman and first and second year players.  They might get good in a year or two, but they're not there yet. 

 

Being in Phoenix I watched the Cardinals game last week - the D'line played well against a decent 49ers O'line. Their whole defense was good, admittedly against a 49ers team that started without its top 2 WRs and lost Kittle early to an injury. Buy yeah I would absolutely be sliding protections over towards Jones who I assume will be lined up all afternoon on Christian. 

 

3 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

And on the other side of the line of scrimmage, their OL is not good.  Certainly not any more talented than ours is.  They've got playmakers for sure, but our front four is so unbelievably good that we can spy Murray and play 6 man coverages and still beat the crap out of that OL.

 

We're going to be alright.  We have a good chance to win this week.

 

I would not spy Murray, he's just too fast and elusive. He runs smart as well. Their O'line is shaky (there is a lot of that around!) so I would rush 4/5 and play a lot of zone behind that to have eyes on Murray. They targeted Hopkins a LOT - so you have to keep Murray in the pocket (edge rushers can not get any higher than his drop) and take Hopkins away as his first read and trust your inside rush to get in his face. Easier said than done of course.

 

I don't like the matchup personally.

[Going Commando]

6 minutes ago, MartinC said:

I would not spy Murray, he's just too fast and elusive. He runs smart as well. Their O'line is shaky (there is a lot of that around!) so I would rush 4/5 and play a lot of zone behind that to have eyes on Murray. They targeted Hopkins a LOT - so you have to keep Murray in the pocket (edge rushers can not get any higher than his drop) and take Hopkins away as his first read and trust your inside rush to get in his face. Easier said than done of course.

 

I don't like the matchup personally.

 

I like it, because I don't think they're really any better than us.  A fast front is exactly what you need to defend a QB like Murray, and I think we have the fastest front in the NFL.  Larry Fitzgerald and DeAndre Hopkins and Christian Kirk is a pretty good trio of weapons, but Hopkins is really the only one that scares you at this point.  I'd play zone coverage all day too, and I think our corners can sit on the underneath stuff against this offense because of how dink and dunk it is and they don't really have to be that scared of the big receivers running by them.  We can play downhill.  And I think that we can dedicate a spy to Murray within our zone coverages.

 

Maybe I'm taking them lightly, but I don't think they're a particularly good team yet.  We're not either, but we've got one of the marquee position groups in the NFL to cover up a lot of our sins and they don't.  Our coaches have more experience.  We have a nascent identity emerging.  We can beat them and are at least on an even footing with them.  The Eagles were a better team than them.

[skinsfan212689]

10 minutes ago, MartinC said:

Being in Phoenix I watched the Cardinals game last week - the D'line played well against a decent 49ers O'line. Their whole defense was good, admittedly against a 49ers team that started without its top 2 WRs and lost Kittle early to an injury. Buy yeah I would absolutely be sliding protections over towards Jones who I assume will be lined up all afternoon on Christian. 

 

 

I would not spy Murray, he's just too fast and elusive. He runs smart as well. Their O'line is shaky (there is a lot of that around!) so I would rush 4/5 and play a lot of zone behind that to have eyes on Murray. They targeted Hopkins a LOT - so you have to keep Murray in the pocket (edge rushers can not get any higher than his drop) and take Hopkins away as his first read and trust your inside rush to get in his face. Easier said than done of course.

 

I don't like the matchup personally.

I definitely understand your concern about the match up but I’m hoping Ron and Jack is telling our defense let’s show them again. Kyler runs a little too much for my liking and it only take one hit and Kyler could be out.
 

Of course I’m not hoping that I would like to beat them at their best but all that running will catch up to him. He’s good at protecting himself but we are playing like a pack of wild wolves on defense right now. I’m excited to see what Jack draw up for the Cards. 

[MartinC]

Just now, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

The Eagles were a better team than them.

 

When healthy absolutely. I think we have a decent chance as well - but the Cardinals are definitely a team on the rise for my money. You do get the feeling wwatching Murray play though with his size that at some point he is going t get killed back there 🙂

[NickyJ]

The Cardinals beat a team that went to the Super Bowl last year. No matter how many injuries that team took, it's not something to scoff at.

[Mr. Sinister]

42 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

When healthy absolutely. I think we have a decent chance as well - but the Cardinals are definitely a team on the rise for my money. You do get the feeling wwatching Murray play though with his size that at some point he is going t get killed back there 🙂

 

Looks like a little kid running at recess

[HTTRDynasty]

 

[CommanderInTheRye]

 

2 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

 

 

That is stunning!

 

Based on week one data,  frequency of “motion at the snap” or what I’ll call MATS— but not necessarily pre-snap motion, has the strongest correlation with probability of winning.

 

Would be interesting to see data for this over the last few full seasons.

[Llevron]

3 minutes ago, TrancesWithWolves said:

That 

 

 

That is stunning!

 

It seems like, based on week one data,  frequency of pre-snap motion has a strong correlation with probability of winning.

 

Would be interesting to see data for this over the last few full seasons.

 

Sounds like they have it some place if you look. Im judging that by the way the guys tweets are worded so im not 100% on that. But he did say that longer term trends were noticed from the last season at least and its similar. Not a perfect win record, obviously, but it clearly helps. Its going to be where the league is headed if its not already. 

[CommanderInTheRye]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

 

Sounds like they have it some place if you look. Im judging that by the way the guys tweets are worded so im not 100% on that. But he did say that longer term trends were noticed from the last season at least and its similar. Not a perfect win record, obviously, but it clearly helps. Its going to be where the league is headed if its not already. 

 

Yes. By the way, you quoted me before I changed “pre-snap motion” to “motion at the snap” which is the truly revolutionary insight this list provides.

 

It is the motion at the snap or MATS that seems to have the greatest effect. Perhaps it’s because this creates more confusion with the defense as to their assignments. This is actually quite fascinating. Something worth studying over the length of the season.

 

Scott Turner is cutting edge on this. Definitely leading the trend rather than following it. Now if we only had more than one receiver to better take advantage of that confusion.

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

15 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

 

Well I'm wrong.  I thought all Scott Turner did wasn't as misdirectiony as we were led to believe, and it was instead league average.  League average is far lower than I thought.

 

For just the NFC East:

Football Team - 26.9% at snap, and 62.9% for total motion

Eagles - 9% and 29.9%

Cowboys - 4.3% and 31.9%

Giants - 1.6% and 9.4%

 

That's a crazy difference.

 

[Llevron]

Just now, TrancesWithWolves said:

 

Yes, you quoted me before I changed “pre-snap motion” to “at the snap motion”.

 

It is the motion at the snap that seems to have the greatest effect. Perhaps it’s because this creates more confusion with the defense as to their assignments. This is actually quite fascinating. Something worth studying over the length of the season.

 

Scott Turner is cutting edge on this. Definitely leading the trend rather than following it. Now if we only had more than one receiver to better take advantage of that confusion.

 

I bet its more simple than that. Pre snap you are thinking about your assignments, at the snap you have to react or get left behind. No time to think just instinct. And you can manipulate that instinct if you study a groups tendencies. 

 

This is all my guess I know almost nothing about wtf im talking about lol 

[CommanderInTheRye]

1 hour ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

Well I'm wrong.  I thought all Scott Turner did wasn't as misdirectiony as we were led to believe, and it was instead league average.  League average is far lower than I thought.

 

For just the NFC East:

Football Team - 26.9% at snap, and 62.9% for total motion

Eagles - 9% and 29.9%

Cowboys - 4.3% and 31.9%

Giants - 1.6% and 9.4%

 

That's a crazy difference.

 

 

 

This is the future.

 

Look at the smart offensive minds. They’re almost all in the top 10 with respect to “motion at the snap” or what I’ll coin as the MATS stat. It’s just a first look, but it seems like this gives the team that uses MATS a significant and measurable edge.

 

MATS is a force multiplier. It allows a lesser talented team to perform better than they should on paper.

 

Exciting stuff!

 

 

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I probably harped on the O line on this thread as much as anyone before the season.  I recall even arguments about it with some defending Christian and disagreeing with me that the Giants O line has jumped a clear peg above ours among other things. 

 

So yeah I get how bad it is.

 

 

That was meee!  Well at least one of those "some" was me.  My eye test has our Week 1 OL play as 2 awful, 2 meh, and 1 great...and the sum of those parts adds up to not much.  Moses was a great surprise, but everyone else played worse than I thought they would.

 

But my main argument was that the Giants o-line was not better, and at best just par with us.  They also looked awful in Week 1.  I was joking with a Giants friend, that if we combined our two OL's we might have 1 decent OL.  The right side of the Giants OL was getting blown up too often, similarly the left side of our OL was as well.

 

Ross Tucker on The Athletic, is going to be doing a league wide OL column.  He put his pre-season tiers up today, and both the Giants and Football Team were in the 4th (out of 5) tier.