49ers Offensive Line

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
The great BT formula goes 3-3 and the takeaway is that's a win and he was right.

I mean damn, my formula was 4-2 this week. I thought BT was the SME?

I believe BT goes off of talent in his rankings, not results. If he doesn't know how talented that lineman is in a scheme.. you probably get a lower score

No excuses. I have heard numerous times around the NFL media that this is a results based league.

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
The great BT formula goes 3-3 and the takeaway is that's a win and he was right.

I mean damn, my formula was 4-2 this week. I thought BT was the SME?

I believe BT goes off of talent in his rankings, not results. If he doesn't know how talented that lineman is in a scheme.. you probably get a lower score

No excuses. I have heard numerous times around the NFL media that this is a results based league.

not an excuse, but maybe pointing out a flaw

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
The great BT formula goes 3-3 and the takeaway is that's a win and he was right.

I mean damn, my formula was 4-2 this week. I thought BT was the SME?

I believe BT goes off of talent in his rankings, not results. If he doesn't know how talented that lineman is in a scheme.. you probably get a lower score

No excuses. I have heard numerous times around the NFL media that this is a results based league.

not an excuse, but maybe pointing out a flaw

The truth is that no matter how much research you do, you cannot account for all the variables. Three of the major variables being injuries, penalties and turnovers.

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
The great BT formula goes 3-3 and the takeaway is that's a win and he was right.

I mean damn, my formula was 4-2 this week. I thought BT was the SME?

I believe BT goes off of talent in his rankings, not results. If he doesn't know how talented that lineman is in a scheme.. you probably get a lower score

No excuses. I have heard numerous times around the NFL media that this is a results based league.

not an excuse, but maybe pointing out a flaw

The truth is that no matter how much research you do, you cannot account for all the variables. Three of the major variables being injuries, penalties and turnovers.

That's why football's perhaps the ultimate betting sport. It's literally the appeal of football.

Variables and equations will only take you so far due to the design of the game.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
The great BT formula goes 3-3 and the takeaway is that's a win and he was right.

I mean damn, my formula was 4-2 this week. I thought BT was the SME?

I believe BT goes off of talent in his rankings, not results. If he doesn't know how talented that lineman is in a scheme.. you probably get a lower score

No excuses. I have heard numerous times around the NFL media that this is a results based league.

not an excuse, but maybe pointing out a flaw

The truth is that no matter how much research you do, you cannot account for all the variables. Three of the major variables being injuries, penalties and turnovers.

That's why football's perhaps the ultimate betting sport. It's literally the appeal of football.

Variables and equations will only take you so far due to the design of the game.

Due to the unpredictability of the game. There are just certain aspects you cannot account for. Which is why this debate and these formulas are stupid and nonsensical. Anyone who gets into the playoffs has a shot at the SB. The teams with the better rosters and better coaches typically win but not always. An in game injury, a poor call/non call by the refs, a dropped/tipped pass for an INT can all swing the outcome of a game.

Pretty quiet in here today

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Giedi:
Personally the formula is more of a conceptual philosophy to me. It tries to get to the point that its a *team game* not a individual positon game. A good team is composed of a good OLine, QB, etc... all the parts. A bad team is usually missing one or all the parts. Etc...

I'm not hung up on tiers so much as the idea behind it. The idea behind it is simple - you needs every positon performing well to have a win. Its not really more complicated than that. The tier thing is a game by game thing and tries to predict how a unit does vs its opposing matchup. Those change game to game.

BUT that's not what was said. First it was it had to be a tier 1 OL. Now both tier 1 OL and QB. No mention of skill players. No mention of defense. No mention of coaching.

Maybe NC meant with all *other things being equal.* At least that's what I'm reading when he says - got to have Tier 1 this that and the other. Even if he didn't mention it, in this day and age of the NFL - it looks like offense rules. I saw a stat that said pretty much every playoff team this year had a Head coach with an offensive background. So there is some truth to the fact that offense might be more important than defense.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Since the formula is broken it should never be brought up again.

The formula is broken, so there can't be a winner now

The formula never determined a winner in the 1st place. QB, defense and HC are way better indicators of team success in the NFL than O line anyway.

This. It is, and always was, complete nonsense. No matter how hard someone tried to continually adjust it when it didn't fit to try and claim some nonexistent victory, it was always just a way to try and justify an OL is the only way narrative. Over the years it was sacks, then QB hits when sacks no longer were applicable, then it was pressures when the other 2 were no longer applicable, then it was non threatening pressures and now it's OL tiers….which has now shockingly morphed into OL + QB + DL etc etc and whatever other caveat one can throw in on the fly. This is just the newest fad that someone has latched onto that they think makes them look right,

Personally the formula is more of a conceptual philosophy to me. It tries to get to the point that its a *team game* not a individual positon game. A good team is composed of a good OLine, QB, etc... all the parts. A bad team is usually missing one or all the parts. Etc...

I'm not hung up on tiers so much as the idea behind it. The idea behind it is simple - you needs every positon performing well to have a win. Its not really more complicated than that. The tier thing is a game by game thing and tries to predict how a unit does vs its opposing matchup. Those change game to game.

lol, we've been saying this for 7 years. You need a good team all around, but you can't go into the playoffs with the QB being your weakest link

NC's take was OL is the end all be all.. which has now morphed into what we've been saying all this time. It's hilarious

I read NC's take as: a great offensive line will make a good QB great, whereas a bad offensive line will make a great QB look merely good. I Agree that you need an all around good team to win a Superbowl. To win regular season game, you can have some weaknesses (just look at Philadelphia). Good QB's (who are not great) have won the Superbowls. So it's not totally true that you need an elite QB to win Superbowl's.

I think the Bet between NC and the folks who disagree with him has sidetracked the X's and O's of this thread. That's OK. The back and forth was interesting to me - up to a point. Once it gets repetitive, then I basically tune that stuff out. But that's just me. Carry on.

Originally posted by Giedi:
Maybe NC meant with all *other things being equal.* At least that's what I'm reading when he says - got to have Tier 1 this that and the other. Even if he didn't mention it, in this day and age of the NFL - it looks like offense rules. I saw a stat that said pretty much every playoff team this year had a Head coach with an offensive background. So there is some truth to the fact that offense might be more important than defense.

Interesting theory

BUF - D
KC - O
BAL - ST
HOU - D

SF - O
DET - O
GB - O
TB - D

I think the trick is as we saw historically with the early Alex 49ers, your quality OC can be poached easily, with a D HC. I'm not as worried about a DC poached as I am an O playcaller. Kyle was OC to Quinn, we poached.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Interesting theory

BUF - D
KC - O
BAL - ST
HOU - D

SF - O
DET - O
GB - O
TB - D

I think the trick is as we saw historically with the early Alex 49ers, your quality OC can be poached easily, with a D HC. I'm not as worried about a DC poached as I am an O playcaller. Kyle was OC to Quinn, we poached.

Yup. D coach really needs to find a coordinator who isn't going to be a HC candidate quickly, ideally. An example would be current Josh McDaniels. You see the reverse of this to a degree in KC. Elite DC who already came up short as a HC. Nobody banging down Spags' door to give him another chance

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Giedi:
Personally the formula is more of a conceptual philosophy to me. It tries to get to the point that its a *team game* not a individual positon game. A good team is composed of a good OLine, QB, etc... all the parts. A bad team is usually missing one or all the parts. Etc...

I'm not hung up on tiers so much as the idea behind it. The idea behind it is simple - you needs every positon performing well to have a win. Its not really more complicated than that. The tier thing is a game by game thing and tries to predict how a unit does vs its opposing matchup. Those change game to game.

It's a passing league. QB + OL is crucial in that formula. These are the elite DL these OL already sent home packing: Myles Garrett, Zadarius Smith, Aaron Donald, Micah Parsons, Demarcus Lawrence, Josh Sweat, Fletcher Cox, Hassan Reddick. And let's be honest, TJ Watt would have been sent home too even if healthy.

And the formula that worked for 7 straight years? While broken this year, you're still most likely going to end up with a tier 1 QB (MVP candidate) + Tier 2 (top 7) OL.

That's not exactly far off from the original formula and overall point. That's no different than this micro-crowd claiming an MVP Mahomes won a Superbowl with a tier 2 OL (not tier 1).

I agree that the CTE rules definitely have given the offense the upper hand. No more Slobberknocking hits etc... I don't know if the typical NFL game will ever cycle back to the *Defense wins Superbowl's* era. Not with CTE being a big issue with the current NFL and the various high school and college programs across the country. Nowadays, defensive play is a lot more like Basketball vs the old Dynasty slobbernocking football days of Ronnie Lott and Ken Norton.

Defensive play is now centered disrupting the timing and Rythm of the QB and Receiver. To the extent an offensive line can prevent a defense from disrupting that timing/Rythm, the offense should win vs a typical defense. Add in the mobility of a QB, and now the defense has to contend with scramble drills that eliminate even the timing/rythm disruptions a typically good defensive line generates. I think guys like Shanahan, McVAy, and LaFleaur will be winning a lot of games vs guys like Salah, Demeco (without Slowick) and Wilks (if he gets another HC job) from here on in, unless the rules change again.

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Since the formula is broken it should never be brought up again.

The formula is broken, so there can't be a winner now

The formula never determined a winner in the 1st place. QB, defense and HC are way better indicators of team success in the NFL than O line anyway.

This. It is, and always was, complete nonsense. No matter how hard someone tried to continually adjust it when it didn't fit to try and claim some nonexistent victory, it was always just a way to try and justify an OL is the only way narrative. Over the years it was sacks, then QB hits when sacks no longer were applicable, then it was pressures when the other 2 were no longer applicable, then it was non threatening pressures and now it's OL tiers….which has now shockingly morphed into OL + QB + DL etc etc and whatever other caveat one can throw in on the fly. This is just the newest fad that someone has latched onto that they think makes them look right,

Personally the formula is more of a conceptual philosophy to me. It tries to get to the point that its a *team game* not a individual positon game. A good team is composed of a good OLine, QB, etc... all the parts. A bad team is usually missing one or all the parts. Etc...

I'm not hung up on tiers so much as the idea behind it. The idea behind it is simple - you needs every positon performing well to have a win. Its not really more complicated than that. The tier thing is a game by game thing and tries to predict how a unit does vs its opposing matchup. Those change game to game.

lol, we've been saying this for 7 years. You need a good team all around, but you can't go into the playoffs with the QB being your weakest link

NC's take was OL is the end all be all.. which has now morphed into what we've been saying all this time. It's hilarious

I read NC's take as: a great offensive line will make a good QB great, whereas a bad offensive line will make a great QB look merely good. I Agree that you need an all around good team to win a Superbowl. To win regular season game, you can have some weaknesses (just look at Philadelphia). Good QB's (who are not great) have won the Superbowls. So it's not totally true that you need an elite QB to win Superbowl's.

I think the Bet between NC and the folks who disagree with him has sidetracked the X's and O's of this thread. That's OK. The back and forth was interesting to me - up to a point. Once it gets repetitive, then I basically tune that stuff out. But that's just me. Carry on.

That is not exactly his take. He is saying OL is far more important than other position groups, which I disagree.

Any great positional group can make other group look better.
A great receiving core can make a good QB great.
A great QB can make a good receiving core great.
A great pass rush can make good DB great.
A great DB can make a good pass rush great.

https://www.eaglesmessageboard.com/topic/10846-oline-delusion/

Arguments from a parallel world.

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Since the formula is broken it should never be brought up again.

The formula is broken, so there can't be a winner now

The formula never determined a winner in the 1st place. QB, defense and HC are way better indicators of team success in the NFL than O line anyway.

This. It is, and always was, complete nonsense. No matter how hard someone tried to continually adjust it when it didn't fit to try and claim some nonexistent victory, it was always just a way to try and justify an OL is the only way narrative. Over the years it was sacks, then QB hits when sacks no longer were applicable, then it was pressures when the other 2 were no longer applicable, then it was non threatening pressures and now it's OL tiers….which has now shockingly morphed into OL + QB + DL etc etc and whatever other caveat one can throw in on the fly. This is just the newest fad that someone has latched onto that they think makes them look right,

Personally the formula is more of a conceptual philosophy to me. It tries to get to the point that its a *team game* not a individual positon game. A good team is composed of a good OLine, QB, etc... all the parts. A bad team is usually missing one or all the parts. Etc...

I'm not hung up on tiers so much as the idea behind it. The idea behind it is simple - you needs every positon performing well to have a win. Its not really more complicated than that. The tier thing is a game by game thing and tries to predict how a unit does vs its opposing matchup. Those change game to game.

lol, we've been saying this for 7 years. You need a good team all around, but you can't go into the playoffs with the QB being your weakest link

NC's take was OL is the end all be all.. which has now morphed into what we've been saying all this time. It's hilarious

I read NC's take as: a great offensive line will make a good QB great, whereas a bad offensive line will make a great QB look merely good. I Agree that you need an all around good team to win a Superbowl. To win regular season game, you can have some weaknesses (just look at Philadelphia). Good QB's (who are not great) have won the Superbowls. So it's not totally true that you need an elite QB to win Superbowl's.

I think the Bet between NC and the folks who disagree with him has sidetracked the X's and O's of this thread. That's OK. The back and forth was interesting to me - up to a point. Once it gets repetitive, then I basically tune that stuff out. But that's just me. Carry on.

That is not exactly his take. He is saying OL is far more important than other position groups, which I disagree.

Any great positional group can make other group look better.
A great receiving core can make a good QB great.
A great QB can make a good receiving core great.
A great pass rush can make good DB great.
A great DB can make a good pass rush great.

Where exactly do you get this? Honest question.

I've been saying the "combination" of a top OL paired with a top QB has CLEARLY been the best combination for winning Superbowls over the past 7 years in a passing league. I have never said, singularly, OL is 'the' most important over everything else, including QB.

We talk more about the OL because annually, it's the last position group to meet the gold standard here and it has been an annual issue; like the secondary and QB before Brock arrived from heaven.

There are other combinations over the past 10 years that have won Superbowls but they pale in comparison. In fact, if you could find a better recent combination, I'd love to read it but not one person has offered up one, ironically.

If you don't think this is a passing league and the combination of top QB + OL isn't critical to that, please explain. I'm all ears.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
https://www.eaglesmessageboard.com/topic/10846-oline-delusion/

Arguments from a parallel world.

Haha! I agree with them. I said earlier this year I thought Philly's OL dropped off a lot from last year. But then again, I don't watch every single snap of every team and stack them either. I'll leave that up to the actual SME's for that.