PDA

View Full Version : Ranking system of Offensive lines.... very interesting


GiantRutgersFan
05-06-2007, 10:57 PM
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol.php


While not definitive, I think its overall a solid indication of who's who in O-line. Its a formula, just like QB rating and if you take it that and don't over analyze, its very solid


wondering what you all are thinking about this.

Damix
05-06-2007, 11:01 PM
I'm thinking you should be put into a usergroup that isn't allowed to create threads.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
05-06-2007, 11:09 PM
I told y'all Denver's O-Line was balls last year.

etk
05-06-2007, 11:14 PM
This thread makes me even more contemptful towards Matt Millen for taking CJ over Thomas. Dead last and woeful in both categories, congrats Detroit! Jeff Backus & George Foster will really make the difference!

devinhester=R.O.Y 2006
05-06-2007, 11:18 PM
Its good to see Chicago and New England rank high in both categories.

Nightmares Win 6-0
05-06-2007, 11:20 PM
imagine that, there are 5 teams who were worse at pass blocking than the worst pass blocking team in history...

bored of education
05-06-2007, 11:26 PM
less excuses for ELI

cunningham06
05-07-2007, 12:57 AM
Not bad, except the Eagles offensive line is certainly better at pass protection than the Titans. #3 Run blocking I can believe, we're ranked #3 in interior just to prove how awesome Andrews and Jamaal Jackson are.

d34ng3l021
05-07-2007, 01:43 AM
Lollerskates. Atlanta ranked 2nd to OAK in worst pass protecting.

2nd to worst pass protecting OL.

WRs that lead the league in drops.

Last in passing attempts.

Yet its ALL MV's fault when the passing offense doesnt click.

fenikz
05-07-2007, 01:46 AM
im kinda amazed that the cardinals are in the middle of the pack basically in both categories

which means these stats sucks

johbur
05-07-2007, 02:39 AM
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol.php


While not definitive, I think its overall a solid indication of who's who in O-line. Its a formula, just like QB rating and if you take it that and don't over analyze, its very solid

wondering what you all are thinking about this.

Nice link. It was not all that surprising with the teams having good line play for the most part enjoying winning success. Green Bay at #16 rushing O-line rank, but #3 pass protection. Too bad they don't have QB hits and pressures factored in for pass pro.

wogitalia
05-07-2007, 02:48 AM
So apparently Minny's RT is great and clearly our RG is god awful, because if our middle is that bad and our LG and C are both good then clearly the RG is dragging it down. It does prove how one-sided our offense was though.

RedAttack
05-07-2007, 05:14 AM
im kinda amazed that the cardinals are in the middle of the pack basically in both categories

which means these stats sucks

No, it just means that you weren't paying attention. The line finally came together in the last eight games of the season.

jackalope
05-07-2007, 07:24 AM
Impressed by the Packers. We had 2 rookies starting and it was the first year of the ZBS, but ranked 16th in run and 3rd in pass.

Jay
05-07-2007, 07:41 AM
I posted that once before, forget where though...

Jughead10
05-07-2007, 07:45 AM
I hope some of the draft experts read that before killing the Giants for not taking a LT.

Finsfan79
05-07-2007, 09:18 AM
4.76 2nd rank

Vernan Carey has been turning into a good Right tackle just the rest of the line sucks.

bsaza2358
05-07-2007, 09:22 AM
These rankings kind of help things, but they don't really take into consideration coaching, playcalling, personnel, the timing of certain plays (like running well late in games), the use of short passes (like in the WCO), etc. There is some benefit to these stats and this analysis, but it is not a total picture that is proof positive of anything.

bigbluedefense
05-07-2007, 09:56 AM
These rankings kind of help things, but they don't really take into consideration coaching, playcalling, personnel, the timing of certain plays (like running well late in games), the use of short passes (like in the WCO), etc. There is some benefit to these stats and this analysis, but it is not a total picture that is proof positive of anything.

Beat me to the punch, great post. When will people learn that you can't make statistical sense out of football?

bsaza2358
05-07-2007, 10:32 AM
I won't completely dismiss these analyses. You can do some statistical analysis to measure a team's success at certain plays, you can also mine the data of playcalling to help manage a game with packages, likely playcalls, etc. However, you cannot use statitistics to accurately project statistics or success on the field.

ks_perfection
05-07-2007, 10:44 AM
imagine that, there are 5 teams who were worse at pass blocking than the worst pass blocking team in history...

Yeah, theres something wrong when a team that gave up 72 sacks is ranked worse than one that gave up 43.

Number 10
05-07-2007, 10:57 AM
But wait...

Ghetto said the Giants line was awful....

hmmm

JoeMontainya
05-07-2007, 11:00 AM
Browns were nearly dead last in everything with this group:
LT - Kevin Shaffer
LG - Joe Andruzzi
OC - Hank Fraley
RG - Cosey Coleman
RT - Ryan Tucker

the only bright spots were Shaffer and Fraley.

In 2007 this will be our OL that hopefully puts us in the 20's at the very worste for OL. 2008 with Bentley back will be scary, and on paper the best OL in the NFL, but unfortunatly were the Browns.
2007:
LT - Joe Thomas
LG - Eric Steinbach
OC - Hank Fraley
RG - Ryan Tucker
RT - Kevin Shaffer
2008:
LT - Joe Thomas
LG - Eric Steinbach
OC - Hank Fraley
RG - Lecharles Bentley
RT - Kevin Shaffer

bsaza2358
05-07-2007, 11:06 AM
These statistics look at individual numbers sets and try to compare and contrast 32 teams that have different personnel, playcalling, etc. It is probably impossible for a statistical model to really rank OLines. You can look at some statistical modeling, but in the end, yards gained and sacks/pressure allowed are all that really matters in the NFL.

Shiver
05-07-2007, 12:58 PM
I am opposed to most metrics. I like a few of them, but I hardly give them more credence than what they are worth.

bigbluedefense
05-07-2007, 01:04 PM
Nothing beats the good old fashioned eyeball evaluation. To me, thats the only one that matters.

Especially in this sport.

This is only the beginning. Just wait until KC Joyner comes out with his stupid metrics analysis of this past season. Everyone is gonna analyze it to death when it really is a flawed approach to begin with.

Im giddy with excitement for those threads. >:-(

bsaza2358
05-07-2007, 01:22 PM
Much of what Joyner does in relation to OLine play is valuable. He looks at whole unit work on running plays and doesn't have a metric to really measure pass blocking effectiveness. He also combines a lot of his OLine metrics to the RB skills. I recall he did a lot of work with the Arizona OLine and Edgerrin James. Again, Joyner and other statisticians have some value in terms of tendencies and specific successes, but I agree that watching tape is the easiest and best way to evaluate actual quality.

Shiver
05-07-2007, 02:12 PM
The only metric I really, really like is Football Outsiders' RB "success rate."

bigbluedefense
05-07-2007, 04:01 PM
meh, metrics aren't that bad bbd. i mean, bear in mind that, when used in a balanced approach to player evaluation, they can be really nice ways to describe certain tendencies. although if you're looking squarely at people who use ONLY metrics, then sure. but i'd argue that people who use a single source of evidence for any argument are typically biased or mis-informed in some way.

I don't really have a problem with the metrics themselves, because they do offer some sort of insight at the end of the day, albeit flawed insight. What I have a problem with is the consequences of the metrics.

Homers/people with agenda's use metrics as an instrument to spew their nonsense all offseason, and it gets irritating.

Metrics threads just wind up being one large homerfest. Thats why they annoy me so much.

bsaza2358
05-07-2007, 04:05 PM
I personally think metrics apply best in evaluating CB coverage/tackling ability, pass rush effectiveness, and run-game effectiveness on the types of plays and playcalls. I also like the QB error statistical analyses. These are the reliable statistical models that I think have a decent application to overall football insight. They have some value, but as people have said, they should be used in tandem with actual game-tape and other scouting. These statistics cannot stand on their own as legitimate evidence of actual player ability.

bsaza2358
05-07-2007, 04:21 PM
I disagree, njx. I LOVE whack-a-mole.

Zbikowski_9
05-08-2007, 01:23 AM
I'm thinking you should be put into a usergroup that isn't allowed to create threads.

Why? do you think your above him?

Caddy
05-08-2007, 04:08 AM
Good too see Tampa Bay rank pretty highly in the rankings ;)

TitanHope
05-08-2007, 10:12 PM
Not bad, except the Eagles offensive line is certainly better at pass protection than the Titans

Well, the fact that our QB is harder than hell to sack may have something to do with it, but the Titans O-Line has improved vastly over this past season. They're also quite young too, aside from Kevin Mawae and Benji Olsen. I'm more-so suprised by them being ranked as 27th in the running game, since we were in the top 5 I believe in run offense last year, and had a 1,200+ yard rusher who averaged 4.5 YPC. Plus, Young ran for 500+ yards with a 6.7 YPC avg, but I dunno if they factored in QBs. Oh well.

johbur
05-10-2007, 02:36 AM
maybe i'm just jaded but don't ALL conversations on this site eventually turn into big homer fests?

I don't know what you're talking about.

Anyways, the Packers are the best team EVER! Or Evah, if you're in the New England area.

Also, Korey Hall is gonna SOOO turn around the team now that he's been moved from ILB to FB. I smell 2500 yards rushing!

portermvp84
05-10-2007, 09:44 AM
72 sacks, thats pretty embarassing.