Leach versus Grubbs

**OC Bob** · 10-24-2012, 04:54 PM

Big name and skill position players often receive most of the attention around the NFL and fans. However, I am fond of looking at some of the other positions and their impact upon the team. So for the bye week, a little "Monday Morning GM" here with a question...

Now that you know about the shambles that our offensive line has been so far this season, if you could have chosen between Ben Grubbs or Vonta Leach, who would you have kept and who would you have let go this past off season?

My (highly questionable) logic here. First off, I know the math isn't exactly right but it is close enough for arguments sake. Vonta Leach is costing us approximately $3.5 million per season. Bobbie Williams is making about $1 million per season or $4.5 million between the two. Ben Grubbs is making about $7 million per season with the Saints. This means that if Ozzie had jettisoned Leach and never signed Williams, he could have locked up a young, Pro Bowl guard for another $2.5 million per season, which is not a fortune in the NFL. Granted, Ozzie would have had to make some more "minor" moves to fit Grubbs under the cap but it would certainly have been within reach without Williams and Leach.

In addition, getting back to my initial statement at looking how "other" players impact the team, I felt that Grubbs was one of the key components to our team last year and stated prior to this season that he would be missed more than people expected. Last year he was injured for 6-games which were arguably some of our least cohesive offensive games. Remember the Titans & Jags games? He missed those games. We were 4 & 2 without Grubbs which included our two worse offensive outputs of the season. We were 8 & 2 with Grubbs. (I know, rather simplistic but just saying and for those counting, we were 4 & 0 without Lewis).

I love Leach and his work ethic but for my money, I would have preferred to lock up another Pro Bowl guard in Grubbs instead of a fullback who only plays half the offensive downs. IMHO the offense starts with the offensive line.

What are your thoughts? Perhaps you could argue that Grubbs career in New Orleans has been less than stellar to date or Leach is the only positive in our running game (besides Rice of course)...

**leachisabeast** · 10-24-2012, 05:02 PM

Ben Grubbs was always so overrated, and was only an average run blocker. Yes he was a good pass blocker, but I don't think he's worth the money that New Orleans are currently paying him. He was a solid pick by Ozzie, but his 3rd round pick that same year has been a better player than him and that's why they paid Yanda and not Grubbs.

**AirFlacco** · 10-25-2012, 04:09 AM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

Ben Grubbs was always so overrated, and was only an average run blocker. Yes he was a good pass blocker, but I don't think he's worth the money that New Orleans are currently paying him. He was a solid pick by Ozzie, but his 3rd round pick that same year has been a better player than him and that's why they paid Yanda and not Grubbs.

I remember that draft well. OZ coveted Joe Staley to replace JO who would have had a year to groom him. Perfect scenario until former Raven assistant, Mike Nolin under Billick, knew Oz wanted Staley and traded above Oz to get him. Nolan left the Ravens to coach SF.

But it was a costly move because he gave up a future #1 and that cost him his job later when he was fired and didn't have enough talent.

But Ozzie's press conference was like a morgue. The company line said they were satisfied
with Grubbs, the next best player on Ozzie's board but you could tell by their body
language they were livid about losing Staley.

And we wouldn't have all these probs moving Oher back and forth.

**Paintballguy** · 10-25-2012, 07:35 AM

Grubbs also had a turf toe which we know linger. I was glad they didn't overpay for him.

**JAB1985** · 10-25-2012, 08:04 AM

Not sure if you guys remember, but we did want Grubbs and offered him a pretty similar deal by most reports. He didnt want to play here anymore and went to play for his hometown team. I agree with Jonboy though, its not really one for one situation. If Grubbs did choose to sign that deal and stay we would have had issues and no Jones. I certainly would have been fine with that before the season, but hes been a nice surprise and im not sure what we lost with Grubbs isnt made up for by Jones, Williams, and Leach.

**BigPlayReceiver** · 10-25-2012, 09:25 AM

Grubbs was overpaid and not having a stellar year, but he's not awful either.
Scoring as the 24th ranked OG while allowing 2 sacks, 2 hits and 2 hurries as per PFF.com.
(Yanda scores at the 2nd ranked OG, just a hair behind Alex Boone)

Paying $65M to your OGs is just a bit crazy, so for that reason alone, I favor Leach.
However, I'd be fine with a 3WR/1TE (byebye Dickson) + Rice and Pierce platooning the single back position, if we'd put Leach's $3M into the OL.

**Corey** · 10-25-2012, 09:38 AM

I like Leach as a player but I hated that contract when he got it and that hasn't changed. The Ravens overpaid big time for Leach.

Having said that Leach and Williams didn't cost the team Grubbs. They could have kept Grubbs if they really wanted to. In fact they came really close to doing so. Grubbs left because Grubbs wanted to leave not because the Ravens couldn't afford to keep him.

G is not a position that I worry about. I believe Osemele would make a tremendous G. But if you push him to G, you leave the T spots in shambles. Thats where the Ravens need to focus their attention and money.

**Bhcforlife** · 10-25-2012, 10:39 AM

I don't think the Ravens overpaid for Leach at all, I think it was a bad signing because of what the Ravens do offensively. Leach is worth every penny of what he makes to a team that is run oriented, a team that puts him out there and lets him maul linebackers all game long, but on this team, that wants to chuck it all over the field 40+ times a game, he has almost no value.

**leachisabeast** · 10-25-2012, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Bhcforlife

I don't think the Ravens overpaid for Leach at all, I think it was a bad signing because of what the Ravens do offensively. Leach is worth every penny of what he makes to a team that is run oriented, a team that puts him out there and lets him maul linebackers all game long, but on this team, that wants to chuck it all over the field 40+ times a game, he has almost no value.

Yes. Imagine how good the 49ers or the Seahawks would be with Leach lead blocking for Lynch or Gore.

**HKusp** · 10-25-2012, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Bhcforlife

a team that puts him out there and lets him maul linebackers all game long, but on this team, that wants to chuck it all over the field 40+ times a game, he has almost no value.

Think about that for a moment. With a league that is devaluing big physical linebackers and allowing bigger more athletic TE's to be the new weapon of choice, Leach could be crushing all these new faster but significantly lighter LB'ers the 1st half of games, then come late 3rd quarter when the opposing team is on the 3rd and 4th string ILB's the whole middle of the field would be opened up for Boldin, Rice, Leach, Dickson and Pitta....:D

**jonboy79** · 10-24-2012, 05:03 PM

First of all, you can't compare 2 salaries vs one as we need 53 players. SO really you are talking Leach/Jacoby Jones/Williams vs Grubbs/2 UDFA's.
Secondly, Grubbs was highly overrrated and thus overpaid by the Saints. Yanda was CLEARLY the better player their entire shared time here, and got paid less the year prior.

I'm fine with letting him go despite our OL struggles.

Great minds think alike Leach...

**leachisabeast** · 10-24-2012, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

First of all, you can't compare 2 salaries vs one as we need 53 players. SO really you are talking Leach/Jacoby Jones/Williams vs Grubbs/2 UDFA's.
Secondly, Grubbs was highly overrrated and thus overpaid by the Saints. Yanda was CLEARLY the better player their entire shared time here, and got paid less the year prior.

I'm fine with letting him go despite our OL struggles.

:word